On 2019-Oct-09, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:21 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> We could improve on matters so far as the postmaster's child-process
> >> arrays are concerned, by defining separate slot "pools" for the different
> >> types of child processes. But I don't see much point if the code is
> >> not prepared to recover from a fork() failure --- and if it is, that
> >> would a fortiori deal with out-of-child-slots as well.
>
> > I would say rather that if fork() is failing on your system, you have
> > a not very stable system. The fact that parallel query is going to
> > fail is sad, but not as sad as the fact that connecting to the
> > database is also going to fail, and that logging into the system to
> > try to fix the problem may well fail as well.
>
> True, it's not a situation you especially want to be in. However,
> I've lost count of the number of times that I've heard someone talk
> about how their system was overstressed to the point that everything
> else was failing, but Postgres kept chugging along. That's a good
> reputation to have and we shouldn't just walk away from it.
I agree with this point in principle. Everything else (queries,
checkpointing) can fail, but it's critical that postmaster continues to
run -- that way, once the high load episode is over, connections can be
re-established as needed, auxiliary processes can be re-launched, and
the system can be again working normally. If postmaster dies, all bets
are off. Also: an idle postmaster is not using any resources; on its
own, killing it or it dying would not free any useful resources for the
system load to be back to low again.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
