Re: [HACKERS] spoonbill vs. -HEAD

2013-05-07 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
On 04/04/2013 02:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Stefan Kaltenbrunner ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc writes: On 04/03/2013 12:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote: BTW, on further thought it seems like maybe this is an OpenBSD bug, at least in part: what is evidently happening is that the temporary blockage of SIGINT during

Re: [HACKERS] spoonbill vs. -HEAD

2013-04-03 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
On 04/03/2013 12:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote: I wrote: I think the simplest fix is to insert PG_SETMASK(UnBlockSig) into StatementCancelHandler() and any other handlers that might exit via longjmp. I'm a bit inclined to only do this on platforms where a problem is demonstrable, which so far is

Re: [HACKERS] spoonbill vs. -HEAD

2013-04-03 Thread Tom Lane
Stefan Kaltenbrunner ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc writes: On 04/03/2013 12:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote: BTW, on further thought it seems like maybe this is an OpenBSD bug, at least in part: what is evidently happening is that the temporary blockage of SIGINT during the handler persists even after we've

Re: [HACKERS] spoonbill vs. -HEAD

2013-04-02 Thread Tom Lane
Stefan Kaltenbrunner ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc writes: On 03/26/2013 11:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote: A different line of thought is that the cancel was received by the backend but didn't succeed in cancelling the query for some reason. I added the pgcancel failed codepath you suggested but it does

Re: [HACKERS] spoonbill vs. -HEAD

2013-04-02 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: I think the simplest fix is to insert PG_SETMASK(UnBlockSig) into StatementCancelHandler() and any other handlers that might exit via longjmp. I'm a bit inclined to only do this on platforms where a problem is demonstrable, which so far is only OpenBSD. (You'd think that all BSDen

Re: [HACKERS] spoonbill vs. -HEAD

2013-03-27 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
On 03/26/2013 11:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Stefan Kaltenbrunner ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc writes: hmm - will look into that in a bit - but I also just noticed that on the same day spoonbill broke there was also a commit to that file immediately before that code adding the fflush() calls. It's

Re: [HACKERS] spoonbill vs. -HEAD

2013-03-27 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
On 03/26/2013 10:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes: There is some timeout code already in the buildfarm client. It was originally put there to help us when we got CVS hangs, a not infrequent occurrence in the early days, so it's currently only used if

Re: [HACKERS] spoonbill vs. -HEAD

2013-03-27 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 03/27/2013 03:49 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: On 03/26/2013 10:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes: There is some timeout code already in the buildfarm client. It was originally put there to help us when we got CVS hangs, a not infrequent occurrence in the

[HACKERS] spoonbill vs. -HEAD

2013-03-26 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Hi all! I finally started to investigate why spoonbill stopped reporting to the buildfarm feedback about 2 months ago. It seems that the foreign-keys locking patch (or something commity very close to January 23th) broke it in a fairly annoying way - running the buildfarm script seems to

Re: [HACKERS] spoonbill vs. -HEAD

2013-03-26 Thread Tom Lane
Stefan Kaltenbrunner ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc writes: I finally started to investigate why spoonbill stopped reporting to the buildfarm feedback about 2 months ago. It seems that the foreign-keys locking patch (or something commity very close to January 23th) broke it in a fairly annoying way -

Re: [HACKERS] spoonbill vs. -HEAD

2013-03-26 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
On 03/26/2013 08:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Stefan Kaltenbrunner ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc writes: I finally started to investigate why spoonbill stopped reporting to the buildfarm feedback about 2 months ago. It seems that the foreign-keys locking patch (or something commity very close to January

Re: [HACKERS] spoonbill vs. -HEAD

2013-03-26 Thread Tom Lane
Stefan Kaltenbrunner ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc writes: On 03/26/2013 08:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote: It looks from here like the isolationtester client is what's dropping the ball --- the backend states are unsurprising, and two of them are waiting for a new client command. Can you get a stack trace

Re: [HACKERS] spoonbill vs. -HEAD

2013-03-26 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 03/26/2013 02:50 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: Hi all! I finally started to investigate why spoonbill stopped reporting to the buildfarm feedback about 2 months ago. It seems that the foreign-keys locking patch (or something commity very close to January 23th) broke it in a fairly

Re: [HACKERS] spoonbill vs. -HEAD

2013-03-26 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes: There is some timeout code already in the buildfarm client. It was originally put there to help us when we got CVS hangs, a not infrequent occurrence in the early days, so it's currently only used if configured for the checkout phase, but it could

Re: [HACKERS] spoonbill vs. -HEAD

2013-03-26 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
On 03/26/2013 09:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Stefan Kaltenbrunner ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc writes: On 03/26/2013 08:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote: It looks from here like the isolationtester client is what's dropping the ball --- the backend states are unsurprising, and two of them are waiting for a new

Re: [HACKERS] spoonbill vs. -HEAD

2013-03-26 Thread Tom Lane
Stefan Kaltenbrunner ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc writes: hmm - will look into that in a bit - but I also just noticed that on the same day spoonbill broke there was also a commit to that file immediately before that code adding the fflush() calls. It's hard to see how those would be related to