Re: [HACKERS] Is PQreset() proper ?

[Hiroshi Inoue]

Tom Lane wrote: > > "Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > postmaster: BackendStartup: pid 395 user reindex db reindex socket 5 > > DEBUG: exit(2) > > postmaster: reaping dead processes... > > postmaster: CleanupProc: pid 394 exited with status 512 > > Server process (pid 394) exited with status 512 at Tue Dec 19 20:12:41 2000 > > Terminating any active server processes... > > postmaster: CleanupProc: sending SIGUSR1 to process 395 > > postmaster child[395]: starting with (postgres -d2 -v131072 -p reindex ) > > This isn't PQreset()'s fault that I can see. This is a race condition > caused by bogosity in PostgresMain --- it enables SIGUSR1 before it's > set up the correct signal handler for same. The postmaster should have > started the child process with all signals blocked, so SIGUSR1 will be > held off until the child explicitly enables it; but it does so a few > lines too soon. Will fix. > I once observed another case,the hang of CheckPoint process while postmaster was in a backend crash recovery. I changed postmaster.c to not invoke CheckPoint process while postmaster is in a backend crash recovery but it doesn't seem sufficient. SIGUSR1 signal seems to be blocked all the way in CheckPoint process. Regards. Hiroshi Inoue