Re: elog(FATAL) vs shared memory
От | Mark Shuttleworth |
---|---|
Тема | Re: elog(FATAL) vs shared memory |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 46174A23.7010404@ubuntu.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: elog(FATAL) vs shared memory (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: <blockquote cite="mid14772.1175879965@sss.pgh.pa.us" type="cite"><pre wrap="">Stuart Bishop <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"href="mailto:stuart.bishop@canonical.com"><stuart.bishop@canonical.com></a> writes: </pre><blockquotetype="cite"><pre wrap="">After a test is run, the test harness kills any outstanding connections so we can drop the test database. Without this, a failing test could leave open connections dangling causing the drop database to block. </pre></blockquote><pre wrap=""> Just to make it perfectly clear: we don't consider SIGTERMing individual backends to be a supported operation (maybe someday, but not today). That's why you had to resort to plpythonu to do this. I hope you don't have anything analogous in your production databases ... </pre></blockquote> Ah, that could explain it. With the recent patchesit seems to be working OK, but I guess we should find a more standard way to rejig the db during the test runs.<br/><br /> Mark<br />
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: