Re: Immediate shutdown and system(3)

From: Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Immediate shutdown and system(3)
Date: 2009-03-03 16:16:05
Message-ID: 49AD57C5.8090904@sun.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dne 2.03.09 08:59, Heikki Linnakangas napsal(a):
> Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I'm leaning towards option 3, but I wonder if anyone sees a better
>>> solution.
>>
>> 4. Use the shared memory to tell the startup process about the
>> shutdown state.
>> When a shutdown signal arrives, postmaster sets the corresponding
>> shutdown
>> state to the shared memory before signaling to the child processes.
>> The startup
>> process check the shutdown state whenever executing system(), and
>> determine
>> how to exit according to that state. This solution doesn't change any
>> existing
>> behavior of pg_standby. What is your opinion?
>
> That would only solve the problem for pg_standby. Other programs you
> might use as a restore_command or archive_command like "cp" or "rsync"
> would still core dump on the SIGQUIT.
>

I think that we could have two methods. Extended method will use share
memory to say what child should do and standard which send appropriate
signal to child. For example pg_ctl could use extended communication to
better postmaster controlling.

Zdenek

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2009-03-03 18:29:53 Who's reviewing SEPostgres?
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2009-03-03 16:02:35 Re: pg_restore -m failing