From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SIGTERM/FATAL error |
Date: | 2001-03-12 01:08:43 |
Message-ID: | 200103120108.UAA23989@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> This is a non-improvement. Please reverse it. SIGTERM would only be
> >> sent to a backend if the database system were in fact shutting down.
>
> > But why say the system is shutting down if the backend is shutting down.
> > Seems the postmaster should say system shutting down and each backend
> > should say it is shutting itself down. The way it is now, don't we get
> > a "system shutting down" message for every running backend?
>
> You are failing to consider that the primary audience for this error
> message is not the system log, but the clients of the backends. They
> are going to see only one message, and they are going to want to know
> *why* their backend shut down.
Oops, I get it now. Makes perfect sense. Thanks.
I am using the SIGTERM in my administration application to allow
administrators to kill individual backends. That is why I noticed the
message.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-03-12 01:10:26 | Re: SIGTERM/FATAL error |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-03-12 01:06:31 | Re: SIGTERM/FATAL error |