Re: Missed check for too-many-children in bgworker spawning
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Missed check for too-many-children in bgworker spawning |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 21667.1570630875@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Missed check for too-many-children in bgworker spawning (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Missed check for too-many-children in bgworker spawning
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 4:03 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> ... Moreover, we have to --- and already do, I trust --- deal with >> other resource-exhaustion errors in exactly the same code path, notably >> fork(2) failure which we simply can't predict or prevent. Doesn't the >> parallel query logic already deal sanely with failure to obtain as many >> workers as it wanted? > If we fail to obtain workers because there are not adequate workers > slots available, parallel query deals with that smoothly. But, once > we have a slot, any further failure will trigger the parallel query to > ERROR out. Well, that means we have a not-very-stable system then. We could improve on matters so far as the postmaster's child-process arrays are concerned, by defining separate slot "pools" for the different types of child processes. But I don't see much point if the code is not prepared to recover from a fork() failure --- and if it is, that would a fortiori deal with out-of-child-slots as well. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: