From: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgsql/src backend/tcop/postgres.c include/misc ... |
Date: | 2002-01-06 09:46:29 |
Message-ID: | EKEJJICOHDIEMGPNIFIJCEADGGAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > Now I realize that 7.1 already changed the handling of
> > die interrupts fundamentally. For example we can't kill
> > the backend which is in a trouble with an infinite loop.
> > Was it an intended change ?
>
> Doesn't bother me a whole lot; I don't think that's what the die
> interrupt is for. In my mind the main reason die() exists is to
> behave reasonably when the system is being shut down and init has
> sent SIGTERM to all processes.
In my mind the main reason die() exists is to kill individual
backends which seems to be in trouble without causing
the database-wide restart.
Before 7.1 QueryCancel flag was checked at the points
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS are currently placed.
But the QueryCancel flag had nothing to do with die
interrupts.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | momjian | 2002-01-06 17:54:14 | pgsql/doc/src/sgml ecpg.sgml |
Previous Message | tgl | 2002-01-06 03:33:26 | pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref createlang.sgml droplan ... |