From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: kill -KILL: What happens? |
Date: | 2011-01-14 01:20:20 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTim6iRmHX-w79zWoT5u5nQAdBb1XAMn059O9p=B8@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
>> I don't believe there's one right answer to that.
>
> Right. Force-kill presumes there is only one right answer.
>
>> Assume postgres is driving a website, and the postmaster crashes shortly
>> after a pg_dump run started. You probably won't want your website to be
>> offline while pg_dump is finishing its backup.
>
>> If, on the other hand, your data warehousing database is running a
>> multi-hour query, you might prefer that query to finish, even at the price
>> of not being able to accept new connections.
>
>> So maybe there should be a GUC for this?
>
> No need (and rather inflexible anyway). If you don't want an orphaned
> backend to continue, you send it SIGTERM.
It is not easy to make this work in such a way that you can ensure a
clean, automatic restart of PostgreSQL after a postmaster death.
Which is what at least some people want.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-14 01:28:27 | Re: kill -KILL: What happens? |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-14 01:19:41 | Re: kill -KILL: What happens? |