| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] Should we fix postmaster to avoid slow shutdown? |
| Date: | 2016-11-18 17:02:49 |
| Message-ID: | 22083.1479488569@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 11/14/16 4:38 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> The patch 02_close_listen... closes the listen sockets
>> explicitly when it's known that postmaster is going to stop all the
>> children and then die. I have tried to see, if there's a possibility
>> that it closes the listen sockets but do not actually die, thus
>> causing a server which doesn't accept any connections and doesn't die.
>> But I have not found that possibility.
> I can see the point of this, but I'm not sure whether this is always a
> good idea.
IMO it's not, and closer analysis says that this patch series is an
attempt to solve something we already fixed, better, in 9.4.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2016-11-18 17:12:06 | Re: [RFC] Should we fix postmaster to avoid slow shutdown? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-11-18 17:00:12 | Re: [RFC] Should we fix postmaster to avoid slow shutdown? |