Comments: In-reply-to Stephen Robert Norris <srn@commsecure.com.au>
message dated "29 May 2002 11:59:25 +1000"
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 23:55:57 -0400
Message-ID: <20115.1022644557@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org
Stephen Robert Norris <srn@commsecure.com.au> writes:
> Not at all like the vacuum problem. Do you have any other tests I can
> run? Other diagnostics that might help?
This is a long shot, but ... does the behavior change if you remove the
two lines
if (signo != SIGALRM)
act.sa_flags |= SA_RESTART;
near the bottom of src/backend/libpq/pqsignal.c ? I am wondering if
Linux gets unhappy if we try to do much in a signal handler. This
looks to be the simplest alteration that might address such a problem.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
