Re: select on 22 GB table causes "An I/O error occured while sending to the backend." exception - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: select on 22 GB table causes "An I/O error occured while sending to the backend." exception
Date
Msg-id 20080829024939.GN8424@alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: select on 22 GB table causes "An I/O error occured while sending to the backend." exception  (david@lang.hm)
Responses Re: select on 22 GB table causes "An I/O error occured while sending to the backend." exception  (david@lang.hm)
List pgsql-performance
david@lang.hm escribió:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008, Scott Marlowe wrote:

>> scenario 1:  There's a postmaster, it owns all the child processes.
>> It gets killed.  The Postmaster gets restarted.  Since there isn't one
>
> when the postmaster gets killed doesn't that kill all it's children as
> well?

Of course not.  The postmaster gets a SIGKILL, which is instant death.
There's no way to signal the children.  If they were killed too then
this wouldn't be much of a problem.

>> running, it comes up.  starts new child processes.  Meanwhile, the old
>> child processes that don't belong to it are busy writing to the data
>> store.  Instant corruption.
>
> if so then the postmaster should not only check if there is an existing
> postmaster running, it should check for the presense of the child
> processes as well.

See my other followup.  There's limited things it can check, but against
sysadmin stupidity there's no silver bullet.

> well, if you aren't going through the postmaster, what process is
> recieving network messages? it can't be a group of processes, only one
> can be listening to a socket at one time.

Huh?  Each backend has its own socket.

> and if the postmaster isn't needed for the child processes to write to
> the datastore, how are multiple child processes prevented from writing to
> the datastore normally? and why doesn't that mechanism continue to work?

They use locks.  Those locks are implemented using shared memory.  If a
new postmaster starts, it gets a new shared memory, and a new set of
locks, that do not conflict with the ones already held by the first gang
of backends.  This is what causes the corruption.


> so are you saying that the only possible thing that can kill the
> postmaster is the OOM killer? it can't possilby exit in any other
> situation without the children being shutdown first?
>
> I would be surprised if that was really true.

If the sysadmin sends a SIGKILL then obviously the same thing happens.

Any other signal gives it the chance to signal the children before
dying.

--
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Greg Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: How to setup disk spindles for best performance
Next
From: david@lang.hm
Date:
Subject: Re: select on 22 GB table causes "An I/O error occured while sending to the backend." exception