Re: SIGTERM/FATAL error
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SIGTERM/FATAL error |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 23595.984362096@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SIGTERM/FATAL error (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: SIGTERM/FATAL error
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > I am using the SIGTERM in my administration application to allow > administrators to kill individual backends. That is why I noticed the > message. Hm. Of course the backend cannot tell the difference between this use of SIGTERM and its normal use for system shutdown. Maybe we could come up with a compromise message --- although I suspect a compromise would just be more confusing. A more significant issue is whether it's really a good idea to start encouraging dbadmins to go around killing individual backends. I think this is likely to be a Bad Idea (tm). We have no experience (that I know of) with applying SIGTERM for any other purpose than system shutdown or forced restart. Are you really prepared to guarantee that shared memory will always be left in a consistent state? That there will be no locks left locked, etc? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: