Re: Refactoring postmaster's code to cleanup after child exit
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Refactoring postmaster's code to cleanup after child exit |
Дата | |
Msg-id | e9e58efa-a364-4f4f-b112-a11d62af952a@iki.fi обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Refactoring postmaster's code to cleanup after child exit (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Refactoring postmaster's code to cleanup after child exit
Re: Refactoring postmaster's code to cleanup after child exit |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/08/2024 13:47, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Windows, if a child process exits with ERROR_WAIT_NO_CHILDREN, it's > now logged with that exit code, instead of 0. Also, if a bgworker > exits with ERROR_WAIT_NO_CHILDREN, it's now treated as crashed and is > restarted. Previously it was treated as a normal exit. > > Interesting. So when that error was first specially handled in this thread: > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/AANLkTimCTkNKKrHCd3Ot6kAsrSS7SeDpOTcaLsEP7i%2BM%40mail.gmail.com#41f60947571b75377f04af67ba6baf40 > > ... it went from being considered a crash, to being considered like > exit(0). It's true that shared memory can't be corrupted by a process > that never enters main(), but it's better not to hide the true reason > for the failure (if it is still possible -- I don't find many > references to that phenomenon in recent times). Clobbering exitstatus > with 0 doesn't seem right at all, now that we have background workers > whose restart behaviour is affected by that. I adjusted this ERROR_WAIT_NO_CHILDREN a little more, to avoid logging the death of the child twice in some cases. >> * v3-0003-Fix-comment-on-processes-being-kept-over-a-restar.patch > > +1 Committed the patches up to and including this one, with tiny comment changes. >> * v3-0004-Consolidate-postmaster-code-to-launch-background-.patch > > Much of the code in process_pm_child_exit() to launch replacement > processes when one exits or when progressing to next postmaster state > was unnecessary, because the ServerLoop will launch any missing > background processes anyway. Remove the redundant code and let > ServerLoop handle it. I'm going to work a little more on the comments on this one before committing; I had just moved all the "If we have lost the XXX, try to start a new one" comments as is, but they look pretty repetitive now. Thanks for the review! -- Heikki Linnakangas Neon (https://neon.tech)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: