Re: [HACKERS] parallel.c oblivion of worker-startup failures

2017-10-27 Thread Amit Kapila
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Amit Kapila writes: >>> Attached patch fixes these problems. >> >> Hmm, this patch adds a kill(notify_pid) after one

Re: [HACKERS] parallel.c oblivion of worker-startup failures

2017-09-18 Thread Amit Kapila
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Amit Kapila writes: >> Attached patch fixes these problems. > > Hmm, this patch adds a kill(notify_pid) after one call to > ForgetBackgroundWorker, but the postmaster has several more such calls. >

Re: [HACKERS] parallel.c oblivion of worker-startup failures

2017-09-18 Thread Tom Lane
Amit Kapila writes: > Attached patch fixes these problems. Hmm, this patch adds a kill(notify_pid) after one call to ForgetBackgroundWorker, but the postmaster has several more such calls. Shouldn't they all notify the notify_pid? Should we move that functionality into

[HACKERS] parallel.c oblivion of worker-startup failures

2017-09-17 Thread Amit Kapila
Sometime back Tom Lane has reported [1] about $Subject. I have looked into the issue and found that the problem is not only with parallel workers but with general background worker machinery as well in situations where fork or some such failure occurs. The first problem is that after we register