RE: Quite strange crash
От | Mikheev, Vadim |
---|---|
Тема | RE: Quite strange crash |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A234D3243@sectorbase1.sectorbase.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Quite strange crash (Denis Perchine <dyp@perchine.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Quite strange crash
Re: Quite strange crash |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> >> Killing an individual backend with SIGTERM is bad luck. > >> The backend will assume that it's being killed by the postmaster, > >> and will exit without a whole lot of concern for cleaning up shared > >> memory --- the SIGTERM --> die() --> elog(FATAL) Is it true that elog(FATAL) doesn't clean up shmem etc? This would be very bad... > > What code will be returned to postmaster in this case? > > Right at the moment, the backend will exit with status 0. I think you > are thinking the same thing I am: maybe a backend that > receives SIGTERM ought to exit with nonzero status. > > That would mean that killing an individual backend would instantly > translate into an installation-wide restart. I am not sure whether > that's a good idea. Perhaps this cure is worse than the disease. Well, it's not good idea because of SIGTERM is used for ABORT + EXIT (pg_ctl -m fast stop), but shouldn't ABORT clean up everything? Vadim
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: