| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Thomas F(dot)O'Connell" <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Paul Tillotson <pntil(at)shentel(dot)net>, Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Safely Killing Backends (Was: Applications that leak connections) |
| Date: | 2005-02-04 19:56:12 |
| Message-ID: | 20050204195612.GA28939@dcc.uchile.cl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 01:44:10PM -0600, Thomas F.O'Connell wrote:
> Is there any stronger medicine that's available (for instance, when a
> backend won't respond to SIGTERM) and has no unfortunate side effects?
> I just ran into this situation the other day (and made the unfortunate
> discovery that SIGABRT is as bad as SIGKILL as far as a postmaster is
> concerned).
As soon as a backend dies a unnatural death, postmaster will rightly
consider that it may have corrupted the shared state. In turn
postmaster will kill all its children mercilessly so they don't spread
the disease.
Even SIGTERM can have bad consequences if it arrives at the wrong time.
(That's why a function to close a remote connection was rejected.)
So, short answer: no.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[(at)]dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>)
"La virtud es el justo medio entre dos defectos" (Aristóteles)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas F.O'Connell | 2005-02-04 20:09:24 | Re: Safely Killing Backends (Was: Applications that leak connections) |
| Previous Message | Thomas F.O'Connell | 2005-02-04 19:44:10 | Safely Killing Backends (Was: Applications that leak connections) |