| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: kill -KILL: What happens? |
| Date: | 2011-01-13 20:01:18 |
| Message-ID: | 4804.1294948878@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I wonder whether we could have some sort of latch-like counter that
>> would count the number of active backends and deliver signals when the
>> count went to zero. However, if the goal is to defend against random
>> applications of SIGKILL, there's probably no way to make this reliable
>> in userspace.
> I don't think you can get there 100%. We could, however, make a rule
> that when a background process fails a PostmasterIsAlive() check, it
> sends SIGQUIT to everyone it can find in the ProcArray, which would at
> least ensure a timely exit in most real-world cases.
You're going in the wrong direction there: we're trying to have the
system remain sane when the postmaster crashes, not see how quickly
it can screw up every remaining session.
BTW, in Unix-land we could maybe rely on SysV semaphores' SEM_UNDO
feature to keep a trustworthy count of how many live processes there
are. But I don't know whether there's anything comparable for Windows.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2011-01-13 20:01:50 | Re: kill -KILL: What happens? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-13 19:53:59 | Re: kill -KILL: What happens? |