Re: [HACKERS] Re: Odd behavior in regression test? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter T Mount
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Re: Odd behavior in regression test?
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.3.95.980613110146.16365B-100000@retep.org.uk
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Odd behavior in regression test?  (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Is it possible that the recent change from fork/exec to just fork leaves
> > the postmaster more exposed? I can imagine that it might, but don't have
> > any direct experience with it so am just guessing. Any other ideas? Do
> > people see this on other platforms? This is the first time I can recall
> > seeing the postmaster go away on a crash of a backend (but of course my
> > memory isn't what it should be :)
>
> My guess is that the postmaster can no longer restart its backends after
> one of them aborts.  Something I need to check into perhaps.

Yesterday, while I was working on the Large Object Orphaning problem, I
was having similar problems. I had to stop and restart the postmaster
before I could do anything afterwards.

--
Peter T Mount peter@retep.org.uk or petermount@earthling.net
Main Homepage: http://www.retep.org.uk
************ Someday I may rebuild this signature completely ;-) ************
Work Homepage: http://www.maidstone.gov.uk Work EMail: peter@maidstone.gov.uk


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter T Mount
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Odd behavior in regression test?
Next
From: Chul Su Park
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [QUESTIONS] builtin lo_unlink(int4)? why int4 not oid?