From: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Escaping from blocked send() reprised. |
Date: | 2014-07-04 09:54:04 |
Message-ID: | 20140704.185404.135768374.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello, thank you for keeping this discussion moving.
> > I think there's no such a reasonable time. The behavior might
> > should be determined from another point.. On alternative would be
> > let pg_terminate_backend() have a parameter instructing force
> > shutodwn (how to propagate it?), or make a forced shutdown on
> > duplicate invocation of pg_terminate_backend().
>
> Well, I think that when people call pg_terminate_backend() just once,
> they expect it to kill the target backend. I think people will
> tolerate a short delay, like a few seconds; after all, there's no
> guarantee, even today, that the backend will hit a
> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() in less than a few hundred milliseconds.
Sure.
> But they are not going to want to have to take a second action
> to kill the backend - killing it once should be sufficient.
Hmm, it sounds persuasive. Well, do you think they tolerate
-force option? (Even though its technical practicality is not
clear)
regards,
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2014-07-04 09:59:23 | Re: gaussian distribution pgbench |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-07-04 09:50:17 | No toast table for pg_shseclabel but for pg_seclabel |