From: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Server Crash |
Date: | 2008-04-22 16:21:41 |
Message-ID: | dcc563d10804220921n688d16f6h4b5f921b5b38b48b@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > From: Scott Marlowe [mailto:scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com]
>
> >> Kill -9 is the "shoot it in the head" signal. It is not
> >> generated by postgresql in normal operation. It can be
> >> generated by "pg_ctl -m immediate stop" . At least I think
> >> that's what signal it sends.
>
> Just for the archives: Postgres never generates kill -9 at all.
> (Immediate stop uses SIGQUIT, instead.) When you see that in
> the log, you can be sure it was a manual action or the OOM killer.
Thanks. Just wondering, what's the difference in behavior from
pgsql's perspective from sigquit and siqkill? Is sigkill more
dangerous than sigquit?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-04-22 16:32:14 | Re: Server Crash |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-04-22 16:06:58 | Re: Server Crash |