On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Haribabu Kommi writes:
>> Thanks for the details. I am sorry It is not proc_exit. It is the exit
>> callback functions that can cause problem.
>
>> The following is the callstack where the problem can happen, if the signal
>> handler is called af
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Haribabu Kommi writes:
>> Thanks for the details. I am sorry It is not proc_exit. It is the exit
>> callback functions that can cause problem.
>
>> The following is the callstack where the problem can happen, if the signal
>> handler is called a
Haribabu Kommi writes:
> Thanks for the details. I am sorry It is not proc_exit. It is the exit
> callback functions that can cause problem.
> The following is the callstack where the problem can happen, if the signal
> handler is called after the spin lock took by the worker.
> Breakpoint 1, 0x
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2014-10-26 08:52:42 +1100, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
>> I am thinking of a possible problem with shm_mq structure spin lock.
>> This is used for protecting the shm_mq structure.
>>
>> During the processing of any code under the spin l
Hi,
On 2014-10-26 08:52:42 +1100, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> I am thinking of a possible problem with shm_mq structure spin lock.
> This is used for protecting the shm_mq structure.
>
> During the processing of any code under the spin lock, if the process
> receives SIGQUIT signal then it is leading
Hi Hackers,
I am thinking of a possible problem with shm_mq structure spin lock.
This is used for protecting the shm_mq structure.
During the processing of any code under the spin lock, if the process
receives SIGQUIT signal then it is leading to a dead lock situation.
SIGQUIT->proc_exit->shm_mq
