From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: backend hangs at immediate shutdown (Re: Back-branch update releases coming in a couple weeks) |
Date: | 2013-06-21 20:56:57 |
Message-ID: | 20130621205657.GA3708@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund escribió:
> On 2013-06-20 22:36:45 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > If we leave postmaster running after SIGKILLing its children, the only
> > thing we can do is have it continue to SIGKILL processes continuously
> > every few seconds until they die (or just sit around doing nothing until
> > they all die). I don't think this will have a different effect than
> > postmaster going away trusting the first SIGKILL to do its job
> > eventually.
>
> I think it should just wait till all its child processes are dead. No
> need to repeat sending the signals - as you say, that won't help.
OK, I can buy that. So postmaster stays around waiting in ServerLoop
until all children are gone; and if any persists for whatever reason,
well, tough.
> What we could do to improve the robustness a bit - at least on linux -
> is to prctl(PR_SET_PDEATHSIG, SIGKILL) which would cause children to be
> killed if the postmaster goes away...
This is an interesting idea (even if it has no relationship to the patch
at hand).
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Browne | 2013-06-21 21:03:18 | Re: backend hangs at immediate shutdown (Re: Back-branch update releases coming in a couple weeks) |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-06-21 20:44:57 | Re: Hardware donation |