| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: backend hangs at immediate shutdown (Re: Back-branch update releases coming in a couple weeks) |
| Date: | 2013-06-28 22:14:44 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYrUrv+oS4CrBaKkNPEKpkDdFUtSSOLEC+Pu9OBxgqeXQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> MauMau escribió:
>
> Hi,
>
>> I did this. Please find attached the revised patch. I modified
>> HandleChildCrash(). I tested the immediate shutdown, and the child
>> cleanup succeeded.
>
> Thanks, committed.
>
> There are two matters pending here:
>
> 1. do we want postmaster to exit immediately after sending the SIGKILL,
> or hang around until all children are gone?
>
> 2. how far do we want to backpatch this, if at all?
Considering that neither Tom nor I was convinced that this was a good
idea AT ALL, I'm surprised you committed it in the first place. I'd
be more inclined to revert it than back-patch it, but at least if we
only change it in HEAD we have some chance of finding out whether or
not it is in fact a bad idea before it's too late to change our mind.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gilles Darold | 2013-06-28 23:08:16 | psql and pset without any arguments |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-06-28 22:06:11 | Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade -u |