Re: kill -KILL: What happens?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: kill -KILL: What happens? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4804.1294948878@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: kill -KILL: What happens? (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: kill -KILL: What happens?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I wonder whether we could have some sort of latch-like counter that >> would count the number of active backends and deliver signals when the >> count went to zero. �However, if the goal is to defend against random >> applications of SIGKILL, there's probably no way to make this reliable >> in userspace. > I don't think you can get there 100%. We could, however, make a rule > that when a background process fails a PostmasterIsAlive() check, it > sends SIGQUIT to everyone it can find in the ProcArray, which would at > least ensure a timely exit in most real-world cases. You're going in the wrong direction there: we're trying to have the system remain sane when the postmaster crashes, not see how quickly it can screw up every remaining session. BTW, in Unix-land we could maybe rely on SysV semaphores' SEM_UNDO feature to keep a trustworthy count of how many live processes there are. But I don't know whether there's anything comparable for Windows. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: