Re: kill -KILL: What happens?
От | Aidan Van Dyk |
---|---|
Тема | Re: kill -KILL: What happens? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTikWTrr_zRH_oH=h6fW2Kn6Y0dSraW5grJoyVirP@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: kill -KILL: What happens? (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: kill -KILL: What happens?
Re: kill -KILL: What happens? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not convinced. I was thinking that we could simply treat it like > SIGQUIT, if it's available. I doubt there's a real use case for > continuing to run queries after the postmaster and all the background > processes are dead. Expedited death seems like much better behavior. > Even checking PostmasterIsAlive() once per query would be reasonable, > except that it'd add a system call to check for a condition that > almost never holds, which I'm not eager to do. If postmaster has a few fds to spare, what about having it open a pipe to every child it spawns. It never has to read/write to it, but postmaster closing will signal the client's fd. The client just has to pop the fd into whatever nrmal poll/select event handlign it uses to notice when the "parent's pipe" is closed. A FIFO would allow postmaster to not need as many file handles, and clients reading the fifo would notice when the writer (postmaster) closes it. a. -- Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god, aidan@highrise.ca command like a king, http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: