Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > Turns out that this problem is not serious at all, because if that
> > palloc() fails, the whole postmaster will exit with a FATAL out of
> > memory message.
> >
> > The problems in the worker code after fork are still an issue though.
>
> It _
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Turns out that this problem is not serious at all, because if that
> palloc() fails, the whole postmaster will exit with a FATAL out of
> memory message.
>
> The problems in the worker code after fork are still an issue though.
It _is_ still an issue -- and a very serious
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> One problem with the patch is this (new code):
>
> bn = (Backend *) malloc(sizeof(Backend));
> ! if (bn)
> {
> ! bn->pid = StartAutoVacWorker();
> ! bn->is_autovacuum = true;
> ! /* we don't need a cancel key */
>
> ! if (bn->pid > 0)
>
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> One problem with the patch is this (new code):
>
> bn = (Backend *) malloc(sizeof(Backend));
> ! if (bn)
> {
> ! bn->pid = StartAutoVacWorker();
> ! bn->is_autovacuum = true;
> ! /* we don't need a cancel key */
>
> ! if (bn->pid > 0)
>
I attach a patch to fix some issues in the autovac process handling
code. Mainly, instead of rechecking periodically in the launcher
whether a worker was able to start or not, what we do is signal it from
the postmaster when it fails.
In order to do this I had to make the postmaster set a flag in
