| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Server Crash |
| Date: | 2008-04-22 16:32:14 |
| Message-ID: | 22753.1208881934@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
"Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Thanks. Just wondering, what's the difference in behavior from
> pgsql's perspective from sigquit and siqkill? Is sigkill more
> dangerous than sigquit?
Yes it is, because sigkill can't be trapped --- it causes instant
process death with no chance to clean up. Not that we have backends
do a lot of cleanup after sigquit either, but at least the option
exists. The real difference is in the postmaster: kill -9 on the
postmaster is a seriously bad idea, because it gets no chance to shut
down its children.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | blovely1338 | 2008-04-23 05:16:39 | Re: postsql on vista |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2008-04-22 16:21:41 | Re: Server Crash |