On 10 May 2012 16:14, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of jue may 10 02:27:32 -0400 2012:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org writes:
I noticed while doing some tests that the checkpointer process does not
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of jue may 10 02:27:32 -0400 2012:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org writes:
I noticed while doing some tests that the checkpointer process does not
recover very nicely after a backend crashes under
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of vie may 11 16:50:01 -0400 2012:
Yep, it's still there as far as I can tell. A backtrace from the
checkpointer shows it's waiting on the latch.
I'm confused about what you did here and whether this isn't just pilot
error. If you run with -T then the
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of vie may 11 16:50:01 -0400 2012:
I'm confused about what you did here and whether this isn't just pilot
error.
The sequence of events is:
postmaster -T
crash a backend
SIGINT postmaster
SIGCONT all child
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org writes:
I noticed while doing some tests that the checkpointer process does not
recover very nicely after a backend crashes under postmaster -T (after
all processes have been kill -CONTd, of course, and postmaster told to
shutdown via Ctrl-C on its
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of jue may 10 02:27:32 -0400 2012:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org writes:
I noticed while doing some tests that the checkpointer process does not
recover very nicely after a backend crashes under postmaster -T (after
all processes have been kill
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of jue may 10 02:27:32 -0400 2012:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org writes:
I noticed while doing some tests that the checkpointer process does not
recover very nicely after a backend crashes under
