Re: kill -KILL: What happens?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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: 2011-01-14 01:19:41
Message-ID: AANLkTin_8Dx5a7Mn1=U2X2qynKs-+CP3UO5i73tJ=R6M@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Killing active sessions when it's not absolutely necessary is not an
>>> asset.
>
>> That's a highly arguable point and I certainly don't agree with it.
>
> Your examples appear to rely on the assumption that background processes
> exit instantly when the postmaster dies.  Which they should not.

But they do.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-01-14 01:20:20 Re: kill -KILL: What happens?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-01-14 01:10:26 Re: kill -KILL: What happens?