Re: bgworker crashed or not?

On 06/05/14 19:05, Robert Haas wrote:
> Which brings up another point: the behavior of non-shmem-connected
> workers is totally bizarre. An exit status other than 0 or 1 is not
> treated as a crash requiring a restart, but failure to disengage the
> deadman switch is still treated as a crash requiring a restart. Why?
> If the workers are not shmem-connected, then no crash requires a
> system-wide restart. Of course, there's the tiny problem that we
> aren't actually unmapping shared memory from supposedly non-shmem
> connected workers, which is a different bug, but ignoring that for the
> moment there's no reason for this logic to be like this.

Agreed.

> What I'm inclined to do is change the logic so that:
>
> (1) After a crash-and-restart sequence, zero rw->rw_crashed_at, so
> that anything which is still registered gets restarted immediately.

Yes, that's quite obvious change which I missed completely :).

> (2) If a shmem-connected backend fails to release the deadman switch
> or exits with an exit code other than 0 or 1, we crash-and-restart. A
> non-shmem-connected backend never causes a crash-and-restart.

+1

> (3) When a background worker exits without triggering a
> crash-and-restart, an exit code of precisely 0 causes the worker to be
> unregistered; any other exit code has no special effect, so
> bgw_restart_time controls.

+1

--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services