Re: kill -KILL: What happens?

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 20:40:11
Message-ID: AANLkTimVazbtjgjwsKNpSCgGbsYfVTUawHKQED3BV8Ss@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 21:37, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I strongly believe you're in the minority on that one, for the same
>> reasons that I don't think most people would agree with your notion of
>> what should be the default shutdown mode.  A database that can't
>> accept new connections is a liability, not an asset.
>
> Killing active sessions when it's not absolutely necessary is not an
> asset.

It certainly can be. Consider any connection pooling scenario, which
would represent the vast majority of larger deployments today - if you
don't kill the sessions, they will never go away.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-01-13 20:42:36 Re: kill -KILL: What happens?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-01-13 20:37:20 Re: kill -KILL: What happens?