| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
| Cc: | Denis Perchine <dyp(at)perchine(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Quite strange crash |
| Date: | 2001-01-09 06:40:49 |
| Message-ID: | 204.979022449@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> writes:
>> Killing an individual backend with SIGTERM is bad luck. The backend
>> will assume that it's being killed by the postmaster, and will exit
>> without a whole lot of concern for cleaning up shared memory --- the
> What code will be returned to postmaster in this case?
Right at the moment, the backend will exit with status 0. I think you
are thinking the same thing I am: maybe a backend that receives SIGTERM
ought to exit with nonzero status.
That would mean that killing an individual backend would instantly
translate into an installation-wide restart. I am not sure whether
that's a good idea. Perhaps this cure is worse than the disease.
Comments anyone?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2001-01-09 06:58:11 | RE: Quite strange crash |
| Previous Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2001-01-09 06:26:43 | RE: Quite strange crash |