From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Checkpoint process signal handling seems wrong |
Date: | 2001-03-08 19:45:48 |
Message-ID: | 28502.984080748@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> writes:
>> However, while sitting here looking at it I can't help wondering whether
>> the checkpoint process shouldn't have responded to the SIGTERM that the
>> postmaster sent it when the other backend crashed.
>>
>> Is it really such a good idea for the checkpoint process to ignore
>> SIGTERM?
> Seems not, SIGTERM --> elog(STOP) should be Ok here.
Yes, after further thought this seems not only desirable but
*necessary*. Else the checkpoint maker might be writing bad data
from corrupted shmem structures, which is exactly what the system-wide
restart mechanism is supposed to prevent.
I'll fix the checkpoint process to accept SIGTERM and SIGUSR1 (but
not SIGINT) from the postmaster.
>> While we're at it: is it really such a good idea to use elog(STOP)
>> all over the place in the WAL stuff? If XLogFileInit had chosen
> I just hadn't time to consider each particular case.
Okay. You're right, that probably needs case-by-case thought that
we haven't time for right now.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-03-08 19:46:03 | Re: Performance monitor |
Previous Message | Matthew Hagerty | 2001-03-08 19:43:54 | Re: Query not using index, please explain. |