Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF45D9F9CCC for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:19:39 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 54043-06 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:19:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF8189F9998 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:19:34 -0400 (AST) Received: from mainbox.archonet.com (84-51-143-99.archon037.adsl.metronet.co.uk [84.51.143.99]) by smtp.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP id 2EC0E745EC; Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:19:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [192.168.1.17] (client17.office.archonet.com [192.168.1.17]) by mainbox.archonet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34D5515EAB; Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:19:30 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <455CAC52.4050205@archonet.com> Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:22:10 +0000 From: Richard Huxton User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060918) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Craig A. James" , 'Postgresql Performance' Subject: Re: Postgres server crash References: <20061023215913.GW26892@nasby.net> <20061025001709.GA26892@nasby.net> <453EF7C4.2040105@modgraph-usa.com> <455BCAE8.8010905@modgraph-usa.com> <455BCCCD.2020701@pws.com.au> <455C420D.8090209@archonet.com> <455C9CCA.7080804@modgraph-usa.com> <455CA016.7030709@archonet.com> <455CA5F3.8020305@modgraph-usa.com> In-Reply-To: <455CA5F3.8020305@modgraph-usa.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200611/127 X-Sequence-Number: 21897 Craig A. James wrote: > Richard Huxton wrote: >> If a "kill -9" as root doesn't get rid of them, I think I'm right in >> saying that it's a kernel-level problem rather than something else. > > Sorry I didn't clarify that. "kill -9" did kill them. Other signals > did not. It wasn't until I manually intervened with the "kill -9" that > the system began the recovery process. Ah, when you said "unkillable" in the first msg I jumped to the wrong conclusion. In that case, see Tom's answer. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd