On 2017-09-19 16:46:58 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > So this is geniuinely interesting. When the machine is really loaded (as > > in 6 animals running on a vm at the same time, incuding valgrind), psql > > sometimes doesn't get the WARNING message from a shutdown. Instead it > > gets > > # psql:<stdin>:3: server closed the connection unexpectedly > > # This probably means the server terminated abnormally > > # before or while processing the request. > > # psql:<stdin>:3: connection to server was lost > > That seems pretty weird. Maybe it's not the same case, but in > > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=calliphoridae&dt=2017-09-19%2020%3A10%3A02 > > you can see from the postmaster log that the backend *is* issuing > the message, or at least it's getting to the server log: > > 2017-09-19 20:20:34.476 UTC [6363] [unknown] LOG: connection received: > host=[local] > 2017-09-19 20:20:34.477 UTC [6363] [unknown] LOG: connection authorized: > user=andres database=postgres > 2017-09-19 20:20:34.478 UTC [6363] t/013_crash_restart.pl LOG: statement: > SELECT $$psql-connected$$; > ... > 2017-09-19 20:20:34.485 UTC [6363] t/013_crash_restart.pl WARNING: > terminating connection because of crash of another server process > 2017-09-19 20:20:34.485 UTC [6363] t/013_crash_restart.pl DETAIL: The > postmaster has commanded this server process to roll back the current > transaction and exit, because another server process exited abnormally and > possibly corrupted shared memory. > 2017-09-19 20:20:34.485 UTC [6363] t/013_crash_restart.pl HINT: In a moment > you should be able to reconnect to the database and repeat your command.
I think it's likely the same - I've observed the same with the added instrumentation. > Have we forgotten an fflush() or something? > > Also, maybe problem is on client side. I vaguely recall a libpq bug > wherein it would complain about socket EOF even though data remained > to be processed. Maybe we reintroduced something like that? That seems quite possible. > > We can obviously easily make the test accept both - but are we ok with > > the client sometimes not getting the message? > > I'm not ... Same here. I'll see if I can spot the bug in an hour or two. If not I'll make the test temporarily accept both outputs while investigating? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers
