From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: windows doesn't notice backend death |
Date: | 2009-05-03 18:14:02 |
Message-ID: | 28338.1241374442@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Well, I can tell you that it is getting an exit code of 1, which is why
> the postmaster isn't restarting.
Blech. Count on Windows to find a way to break things.
> That raises two questions in my mind. First, is that the behaviour we
> expect when we kill the backend this way? And second, why is it still
> showing up in the output of pg_stat_activity?
Well, if the process is being hard-killed without an opportunity to run
through proc_exit(), then yes it is going to still show up in
pg_stat_activity. It's pgstat_beshutdown_hook that removes that entry.
The problem here is that we need to be able to distinguish a task
manager kill from a voluntary exit(1). Have M$ really been stupid
enough to make an external kill look just like an exit() call?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-05-03 19:04:27 | Re: windows doesn't notice backend death |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-05-03 17:58:55 | Re: windows doesn't notice backend death |