I said:
> Yeah, I do recall that some versions had a tmp-scrubber that didn't make
> any exception for socket files. But it's kind of a big coincidence to
> assume that would happen just while Michael was running his benchmark.
... or maybe not. I just looked back at Michael's benchmark page and
observed that the extrapolated time to complete the run in question was
over 24 hours (and the first two parts of the script would've taken
more than 12). If he'd left the machine alone for a couple of days
while the script ran, maybe it's credible that a /tmp-scrubber did its
thing meanwhile.
That still leaves us with all the defunct postmaster children to explain
though. Hmm. I wonder exactly what the postmaster does when someone
forcibly removes its socket file... probably system-dependent, but I
could certainly believe getting into a busy-wait loop of select/accept.
That doesn't look like it should prevent SIGCHLD from getting noticed,
though.
regards, tom lane
