From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Asif Naeem <anaeem(dot)it(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Add shutdown_at_recovery_target option to recovery.conf |
Date: | 2014-11-19 16:12:22 |
Message-ID: | 20141119161222.GI17845@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-11-19 16:04:49 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 19 November 2014 15:57, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > On 2014-11-19 15:47:05 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> > Also, for the Shutdown itself, why are we not using
> >> > kill(PostmasterPid, SIGINT)?
> >>
> >> Done
> >
> > I don't think that's ok. The postmaster is the one that should be in
> > control, not some subprocess.
Just as an example why I think this is wrong: Some user could just
trigger replication to resume and we'd be in some awkward state.
> > I fail to see the win in simplicity over using exit (like we already do
> > for the normal end of recovery!) is. The issue with the log line seems
> > perfectly easily to avoid by just checking the exit code in
> > postmaster.c.
>
> We need to be able to tell the difference between a crashed Startup
> process and this usage.
Exit code, as suggested above.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-11-19 16:13:07 | Re: proposal: plpgsql - Assert statement |
Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2014-11-19 16:11:16 | Re: Add shutdown_at_recovery_target option to recovery.conf |