On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 6/2/17 14:52, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 5/24/17 15:14, Petr Jelinek wrote: >>> All the locking works just fine the way it is in master. The issue with >>> deadlock with apply comes from the wrong handling of the SIGTERM in the >>> apply (we didn't set InterruptPending). I changed the SIGTERM handler in >>> patch 0001 just to die which is actually the correct behavior for apply >>> workers. I also moved the connection cleanup code to the >>> before_shmem_exit callback (similar to walreceiver) and now that part >>> works correctly. >> >> I have committed this, in two separate parts. This should fix the >> originally reported issue. >> >> I will continue to work through your other patches. I notice there is >> still a bit of discussion about another patch, so please let me know if >> there is anything else I should be looking for. > > I have committed the remaining two patches. I believe this fixes the > originally reported issue. >
IIUC the issue that sync worker could be orphaned and keep running inside the long COPY is not fixed yet by commit 3c9bc2157a4f465b3c070d1250597568d2dc285f, and should be fixed. Am I missing something? Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
