Andres Freund writes:
> Or, probably more robust: Simply _exit(2) without further ado, and rely
> on postmaster to output an appropriate error message. Arguably it's not
> actually useful to see hundreds of "WARNING: terminating connection because of
> crash of another server process" messages in
On 2017-06-22 10:41:41 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-02-02 12:18:22 -0800, Jimmy Yih wrote:
> > In the above pull request, Heikki also mentions that a similar scenario can
> > happen during palloc() as well... which is similar to what we saw in
> > Greenplum a couple years back for a deadlo
On 2017-02-02 12:18:22 -0800, Jimmy Yih wrote:
> In the above pull request, Heikki also mentions that a similar scenario can
> happen during palloc() as well... which is similar to what we saw in
> Greenplum a couple years back for a deadlock in a malloc() call where we
> responded by changing exit
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Jimmy Yih wrote:
> In that pull request, we fix the issue by checking for proc_exit_inprogress.
> Is there a reason why startup_die should not check for proc_exit_inprogress?
startup_die() is just calling proc_exit(), so it seems like it might
be better to fix it b
