Re: [GENERAL] postmaster deadlock while logging after syslogger exited - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [GENERAL] postmaster deadlock while logging after syslogger exited
Date
Msg-id 19239.1510000503@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to [GENERAL] postmaster deadlock while logging after syslogger exited  (David Pacheco <dap@joyent.com>)
Responses Re: [GENERAL] postmaster deadlock while logging after syslogger exited  (David Pacheco <dap@joyent.com>)
Re: [GENERAL] postmaster deadlock while logging after syslogger exited  (David Pacheco <dap@joyent.com>)
Re: [GENERAL] postmaster deadlock while logging after sysloggerexited  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-general
David Pacheco <dap@joyent.com> writes:
> I ran into what appears to be a deadlock in the logging subsystem.  It
> looks like what happened was that the syslogger process exited because it
> ran out of memory.  But before the postmaster got a chance to handle the
> SIGCLD to restart it, it handled a SIGUSR1 to start an autovacuum worker.
> That also failed, and the postmaster went to log a message about it, but
> it's blocked on the pipe that's normally connected to the syslogger,
> presumably because the pipe is full because the syslogger is gone and
> hasn't read from it.

Ugh.

> ... that process appears to have exited due to a fatal error
> (out of memory).  (I know it exited because the process still exists in the
> kernel -- it hasn't been reaped yet -- and I think it ran out of memory
> based on a log message I found from around the time when the process
> exited.)

Could we see the exact log message(s) involved?  It's pretty hard to
believe that the logger would have consumed much memory.
        regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Rob Sargent
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] idle in transaction, why
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] idle in transaction, why