On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Rajeev rastogi <rajeev.rast...@huawei.com> wrote:
> On 12th October 2015 20:45, Rajeev Rastogi Wrote: > > > > >>> I observed one strange behavior today that if postmaster process gets > crashed/killed, then it kill all background processes but not the client > backend process. > > > > >> This is a known behaviour and there was some discussion on this > > >> topic [1] previously as well. > > > > > Now as it is confirmed to be valid issue, I will spend some time on this > to find if there is something more appropriate solution. > > > > I checked the latest code and found Heikki has already added code for > secure_read using the latch mechanism (using WaitLatchOrSocket). It > currently waits for two events i.e. WL_LATCH_SET and WL_SOCKET_READABLE. > > Commit id: 80788a431e9bff06314a054109fdea66ac538199 > > > > If we add the event WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH also, client backend process > handling will become same as other backend process. So postmaster death can > be detected in the same way. > > > > But I am not sure if WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH event was not added intentionally > for some reason. Please confirm. > > Also is it OK to add this even handling in generic path of Libpq? > > > > Please let me know if I am missing something? > > I feel this is worth investigation, example for what kind of cases libpq is used for non-blocking sockets, because for such cases above idea will not work. Here, I think the bigger point is that, Tom was not in favour of this proposal (making backends exit on postmaster death ) at that time, not sure whether he has changed his mind. With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
