From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Do we need to do better for pg_ctl timeouts? |
Date: | 2019-06-24 15:53:39 |
Message-ID: | 36dd4124-3951-0e91-a7c9-070dbcbc8f68@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-06-20 18:33, Andres Freund wrote:
> I wonder if we need to split the timeout into two: One value for
> postmaster to acknowledge the action, one for that action to
> complete. It seems to me that that'd be useful for all of starting,
> restarting and stopping.
>
> I think we have all the necessary information in the pid file, we would
> just need to check for PM_STATUS_STARTING for start, PM_STATUS_STOPPING
> for restart/stop.
A related thing I came across the other day: systemd has a new
sd_notify() functionality EXTEND_TIMEOUT_USEC where the service can
notify systemd to extend the timeout. I think that's the same idea:
You want to timeout if you're stuck, but you want to keep going as long
as you're doing useful work.
So yes, improving that would be welcome.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John Naylor | 2019-06-24 16:01:16 | Re: benchmarking Flex practices |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-06-24 15:34:01 | Re: Misleading comment about single_copy, and some bikeshedding |