| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Inconsistencies of service failure handling on Windows |
| Date: | 2014-07-23 14:26:58 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqRpuLVRkN-WJmbnSREiDayRU7MYzA5L2AdPSvto8DqTWA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:22 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Was that a backend that you directly killed? Or the postmaster? The
> subsequent connection failures suggest it was the postmaster. Killing
> the postmaster is not a supported operation, not on Windows and not
> anywhere else either. It's in the category of "doctor, it hurts when
> I do this".
>
The headshot was done on random backends. Perhaps in some of those tests
the postmaster was taken down though :) I didn't check postmaster.pid all
the time.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | MauMau | 2014-07-23 14:42:26 | [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-07-23 14:22:23 | Re: Inconsistencies of service failure handling on Windows |