| From: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 'Shutdown <= SmartShutdown' check while launching processes in postmaster. |
| Date: | 2024-02-21 12:01:43 |
| Message-ID: | CALj2ACXsp0J4nGp8xMYHKPLGm2uY16c++3OHVUrPP-v9C-ec_g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 3:38 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > Children that are stopped by the "if (pmState == PM_STOP_BACKENDS)"
> > stanza in PostmasterStateMachine should not be allowed to start
> > again later if we are trying to shut down. (But "smart" shutdown
> > doesn't enforce that, since it's a very weak state that only
> > prohibits new client sessions.) The processes that are allowed
> > to continue beyond that point are ones that are needed to perform
> > the shutdown checkpoint, or useful to make it finish faster.
>
> Thank you for providing the details. It clarifies the situation. Do
> you think it would be beneficial to include this as a code comment in
> postmaster.c to simplify understanding for future readers?
+1 for a note either before the StartChildProcess() or before the
PMState enum definition.
--
Bharath Rupireddy
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2024-02-21 12:25:25 | Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation |
| Previous Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2024-02-21 11:50:21 | Re: Injection points: some tools to wait and wake |