From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SIGTERM/FATAL error |
Date: | 2001-03-12 01:54:56 |
Message-ID: | 23595.984362096@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I am using the SIGTERM in my administration application to allow
> administrators to kill individual backends. That is why I noticed the
> message.
Hm. Of course the backend cannot tell the difference between this use
of SIGTERM and its normal use for system shutdown. Maybe we could
come up with a compromise message --- although I suspect a compromise
would just be more confusing.
A more significant issue is whether it's really a good idea to start
encouraging dbadmins to go around killing individual backends. I think
this is likely to be a Bad Idea (tm). We have no experience (that I know
of) with applying SIGTERM for any other purpose than system shutdown or
forced restart. Are you really prepared to guarantee that shared memory
will always be left in a consistent state? That there will be no locks
left locked, etc?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-03-12 01:59:57 | Re: SIGTERM/FATAL error |
Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2001-03-12 01:33:06 | Re: SIGTERM/FATAL error |