| From: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Scott Marlowe" <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>, "Dr NoName" <spamacct11(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: transaction timeout |
| Date: | 2005-07-26 17:41:13 |
| Message-ID: | 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE094619@algol.sollentuna.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> > > That said, I have seen some folks post about writing a
> perl or shell
> > > script that runs every x minutes looking for connections
> that have
> > > been idle for > a certain amount of time and kill the backend
> > > associated with it (sigterm, not -9...)
> >
> > what are the implications of killing a postmaster process?
>
> A Sigterm is generally considered safe. It's -9 and its ilk
> that you need to be wary of.
No it's not. See the archives.
The only *safe* way to do it ATM is to restart the database. SIGTERM may
leave orphaned locks or such things in the system. (Incidentally, -9 on
a single backend should be safe I believe. The postmaster will tell all
concurrent connections to abort and restart. It's not nice, but it
should be safe - should perform onrmal recovery same as if you pull the
plug)
//Magnus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dr NoName | 2005-07-26 17:51:16 | Re: transaction timeout |
| Previous Message | Andrew Stewart | 2005-07-26 17:39:12 | error when using SELECT |