Thomas Munro writes:
> Just a thought: instead of the new hand-coded loop you added in
> pmdie(), do you think it would make sense to have a new argument
> "exclude_class_mask" for SignalSomeChildren()? If we did that, I
> would consider renaming the existing parameter "target" to
> "include_ty
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 5:53 PM Arseny Sher wrote:
> Thomas Munro writes:
>
> > 1. Why does pmdie()'s SIGTERM case terminate parallel workers
> > immediately? That breaks aborts running parallel queries, so they
> > don't get to end their work normally.
> > 2. Why are new parallel workers not
Hi,
Thomas Munro writes:
> 1. Why does pmdie()'s SIGTERM case terminate parallel workers
> immediately? That breaks aborts running parallel queries, so they
> don't get to end their work normally.
> 2. Why are new parallel workers not allowed to be started while in
> this state? That hangs f
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 5:44 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> Then perhaps we could do some more involved surgery on master that
> achieves smart shutdown's stated goal here, and lets parallel queries
> actually run? Better ideas welcome.
I have noticed before that the smart shutdown code does not discl
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 2:13 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> 1. In a nearby thread, I misdiagnosed a problem reported[1] by Justin
> Pryzby (though my misdiagnosis is probably still a thing to be fixed;
> see next). I think I just spotted the real problem he saw: if you
> execute a parallel query after
Hello hackers,
1. In a nearby thread, I misdiagnosed a problem reported[1] by Justin
Pryzby (though my misdiagnosis is probably still a thing to be fixed;
see next). I think I just spotted the real problem he saw: if you
execute a parallel query after a smart shutdown has been initiated,
you wai
