Re: How to cripple a postgres server

Comments: In-reply-to Stephen Robert Norris <srn(at)commsecure(dot)com(dot)au>
message dated "29 May 2002 11:59:25 +1000"
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 23:55:57 -0400
Message-ID: <20115(dot)1022644557(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org

Stephen Robert Norris <srn(at)commsecure(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> Not at all like the vacuum problem. Do you have any other tests I can
> run? Other diagnostics that might help?

This is a long shot, but ... does the behavior change if you remove the
two lines

if (signo != SIGALRM)
act.sa_flags |= SA_RESTART;

near the bottom of src/backend/libpq/pqsignal.c ? I am wondering if
Linux gets unhappy if we try to do much in a signal handler. This
looks to be the simplest alteration that might address such a problem.

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly