| From: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_terminate_backend |
| Date: | 2006-08-03 16:36:45 |
| Message-ID: | 1154623004.21451.82.camel@coppola.muc.ecircle.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> "Stuck?" You have not shown us a case where SIGTERM rather than SIGINT
> is necessary or appropriate. It seems to me the above is assuming the
> existence of unknown backend bugs, exactly the same thing you think
> I shouldn't be assuming ...
I do know a case where a plain kill will seem to be stucked: on vacuum
of a big table. I guess when it starts an index's cleanup scan it will
insist to finish it before stopping. I'm not sure if that's the cause,
but I have seen delays of 30 minutes for killing a vacuum... it's true
that finally it always did die... but it's also true that I have 'kill
-9'-ed it before because I thought it's stucked.
Cheers,
Csaba.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-03 16:46:56 | Re: ecpg test suite |
| Previous Message | Joachim Wieland | 2006-08-03 16:36:02 | Re: ecpg test suite |