From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: How to know killed by pg_terminate_backend |
Date: | 2011-01-21 15:35:46 |
Message-ID: | 10300.1295624146@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 13:56, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
>> Anyone has better idea? Tom dislikes my patch but I don't know how to
>> deal with it.
> There was another design in the past discussion:
> One idea is postmaster sets a flag in the shared memory area
> indicating it rceived SIGTERM before forwarding the signal to
> backends.
> Is it enough for your purpose and do we think it is more robust way?
To put this as briefly as possible: I don't want to add even one line of
code to distinguish pg_terminate_backend from database-wide shutdown.
That function should be a last-ditch tool, not something used on a daily
basis. So I disagree with the premise as much as with any particular
implementation.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-21 15:36:12 | Re: SSI and Hot Standby |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-01-21 15:34:42 | Re: pg_dump directory archive format / parallel pg_dump |