| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alex Satrapa <alex(at)lintelsys(dot)com(dot)au>, "Randolf Richardson, DevNet SysOp 29" <rr(at)8x(dot)ca>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Humor me: Postgresql vs. MySql (esp. licensing) |
| Date: | 2003-11-21 15:52:00 |
| Message-ID: | 12539.1069429920@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> The one problem with the signal approach is how long does the system
> wait before giving up on the app shutdown? Seems that should be
> something controllable by the admin, but without shutdown scripts, it
> isn't.
I believe 20 seconds is the standard number --- that's plenty for
Postgres. (I know that it is about 20 seconds on OS X, because
that's how much time tended to get added to the shutdown procedure
back when OS X 10.0 had that shutdown bug that prevented the postmaster
from forking a shutdown subprocess.)
The fact that the number isn't readily configurable is indeed a PITA.
In a previous lifetime I ran a data-collection application that needed
more than 20 seconds to shut down, and so would not exit cleanly if
you didn't have a shutdown script step that would wait for it. But
I don't see it as a problem for Postgres.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Denis Gasparin | 2003-11-21 16:06:01 | Re: Bug in pg_dumpall |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2003-11-21 15:45:17 | Re: Postgresql vs. MySql - need feature matrix for |