Re: patch for parallel pg_dump - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm wondering if we really need this much complexity around shutting
> down workers.  I'm not sure I understand why we need both a "hard" and
> a "soft" method of shutting them down.  At least on non-Windows
> systems, it seems like it would be entirely sufficient to just send a
> SIGTERM when you want them to die.  They don't even need to catch it;
> they can just die.

At least on my Linux test system, even if all pg_dump processes are
gone, the server happily continues sending data. When I strace an
individual backend process, I see a lot of Broken pipe writes, but
that doesn't stop it from just writing out the whole table to a closed
file descriptor. This is a 9.0-latest server.

--- SIGPIPE (Broken pipe) @ 0 (0) ---
read(13, "\220\370\0\0\240\240r\266\3\0\4\0\264\1\320\1\0 \4
\0\0\0\0\270\237\220\0h\237\230\0"..., 8192) = 8192
read(13, "\220\370\0\0\350\300r\266\3\0\4\0\264\1\320\1\0 \4
\0\0\0\0\260\237\230\0h\237\220\0"..., 8192) = 8192
sendto(7, "d\0\0\0Acpp\t15.00000\t1245240000\taut"..., 8192, 0, NULL,
0) = -1 EPIPE (Broken pipe)
--- SIGPIPE (Broken pipe) @ 0 (0) ---
read(13, "\220\370\0\0000\341r\266\3\0\5\0\260\1\340\1\0 \4
\0\0\0\0\270\237\220\0p\237\220\0"..., 8192) = 8192
sendto(7, "d\0\0\0Dcpp\t15.00000\t1245672000\taut"..., 8192, 0, NULL,
0) = -1 EPIPE (Broken pipe)
--- SIGPIPE (Broken pipe) @ 0 (0) ---
read(13,  <unfinished ...>

I guess that https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=663
would take care of that in the future, but without it (i.e anything <=
9.2) it's quite annoying if you want to Ctrl-C a pg_dump and then have
to manually hunt down and kill all the backend processes.

I tested the above with immediately returning from
DisconnectDatabase() in pg_backup_db.c on Linux. The important thing
is that it calls PQcancel() on it's connection before terminating.

On Windows, several pages indicate that you can only cleanly terminate
a thread from within the thread, e.g. the last paragraph on

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms686724%28v=vs.85%29.aspx

The patch is basically doing what this page is recommending.

I'll try your proposal about terminating in the child when the
connection is closed, that sounds reasonable and I don't see an
immediate problem with that.


> The existing coding of on_exit_nicely is intention, and copied from
> similar logic for on_shmem_exit in the backend. Is there really a
> compelling reason to reverse the firing order of exit hooks?

No, reversing the order was not intended. I rewrote it to a for loop
because the current implementation modifies a global variable and so
on Windows only one thread would call the exit hook.

I'll add all your other suggestions to the next version of my patch. Thanks!


Joachim