| From: | Taral <taral(at)taral(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] posmaster failed under high load |
| Date: | 1999-05-06 01:50:17 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.10.9905052049500.1871-100000@dragon.taral.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 5 May 1999, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nope, that theory is all wet --- the backend definitely does
> PS_SET_STATUS("idle") before it waits for a query. Something is
> *really* peculiar here, since your backtrace shows that the backend
> has reached the point of waiting for client input. It is not possible
> to get there without having done PS_SET_STATUS. So why does the process
> still show up as "(postmaster)" in ps? Something is flaky about your
> system's support of ps status setting, I think.
You never altered the task_struct, and so it's still 'postmaster' there.
Note the W... the process is paged out, so the argv is not available!
Taral
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Wayne Piekarski | 1999-05-06 03:31:36 | Re: INSERT/UPDATE waiting (another example) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-05-06 00:25:24 | Re: [HACKERS] posmaster failed under high load |