Re: SIGTERM -> elog(FATAL) -> proc_exit() is probably a bad idea

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: SIGTERM -> elog(FATAL) -> proc_exit() is probably a bad idea
Date: 2001-01-13 00:03:58
Message-ID: 23836.979344238@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> Hmm, CancelQuery isn't so urgent an operation currently.
> For example, VACUUM checks QueryCancel flag only
> once per table.

Right, we'll need to check in more places. See my just-posted proposal.
Checking at any spinlock grab should ensure that we check reasonably
often.

I just realized I forgot to mention the case of SIGTERM while the main
line is waiting for input from the frontend --- obviously we want to
quit immediately in that case, too.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alfred Perlstein 2001-01-13 00:10:36 Re: CRCs
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-01-13 00:01:53 Re: SIGTERM -> elog(FATAL) -> proc_exit() is probably a bad idea