From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Craig Ringer <ringerc@ringerc.id.au>
cc: raghu ram <raghuchennuru@gmail.com>, pgsql-admin@postgresql.org,
	pgsql-general <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Streaming Replication Server Crash
In-reply-to: <5084EF7E.5080809@ringerc.id.au>
References: 
 <CALnrrJQ81icyt7EpzPwPuXPK0SbSv4+C8uyA=6Nwqh+mLw2hOw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5084EF7E.5080809@ringerc.id.au>
Comments: In-reply-to Craig Ringer <ringerc@ringerc.id.au>
	message dated "Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:02:22 +0800"
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 08:52:38 -0400
Message-ID: <27094.1350910358@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Craig Ringer <ringerc@ringerc.id.au> writes:
> On 10/19/2012 04:40 PM, raghu ram wrote:
>> 2012-10-19 12:26:46 IST [1338]: [18-1] user=,db= LOG:  server process
>> (PID 15565) was terminated by signal 10

> That's odd. SIGUSR1 (signal 10) shouldn't terminate PostgreSQL.

> Was the server intentionally sent SIGUSR1 by an admin? Do you know what
> triggered the signal?

SIGUSR1 is used for all sorts of internal cross-process signaling
purposes.  There's no need to hypothesize any external force sending
it; if somebody had broken a PG process's signal handling setup for
SIGUSR1, a crash of this sort could be expected in short order.

But having said that, are we sure 10 is SIGUSR1 on the OP's platform?
AFAIK, that signal number is not at all compatible across different
flavors of Unix.  (I see SIGUSR1 is 30 on OS X for instance.)

> Are you running any procedural languages other than PL/PgSQL, or any
> custom C extensions? Anything that might have unwittingly cleared the
> signal handler for SIGUSR1?

libperl has a bad habit of thinking it can mess with the process's
signal setup ...

			regards, tom lane