From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Keaton Adams" <kadams(at)mxlogic(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Template zero xid issue |
Date: | 2007-08-07 19:03:12 |
Message-ID: | 87ir7rgob3.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> 4. Keep spawning a child, but mark it in the BackendList as known
> doomed, and don't count such children when deciding if it's OK to
> terminate. The problem with this idea is that such children will
> still be connected to shared memory, and we really don't want to
> terminate the postmaster before all connections to shmem are gone.
> (This objection also applies to #1, now that I think about it.)
>
> I'm sort of leaning to solution #3, but I wondered if anyone had
> a different opinion or a better idea.
A variant on option 4 would be to stop accepting new connections once there
are only known-doomed clients left. Ie, behave as if we're shut down already
but not actually exit until all the known-doomed clients drain out.
I think I agree that option 3 sounds simpler though.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Cantor | 2007-08-07 19:07:08 | Re: Internal Postgre SQL documentation |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-08-07 19:01:57 | Re: HOT patch, missing things |