Re: How to know killed by pg_terminate_backend
| От | Itagaki Takahiro |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: How to know killed by pg_terminate_backend |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | AANLkTimQKz57UWmJE=s=_M9w3E3YGb_i_h0KwSu-BMJV@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: How to know killed by pg_terminate_backend (Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org>) |
| Ответы |
Re: How to know killed by pg_terminate_backend
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 13:56, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org> wrote:
>> Here is the patch to implement the feature.
>>
>> 1) pg_terminate_backend() sends SIGUSR1 signal rather than SIGTERM to
>> the target backend.
>> 2) The infrastructure used for message passing is
>> storage/ipc/procsignal.c The new message type for ProcSignalReason
>> is "PROCSIG_TERMNINATE_BACKEND_INTERRUPT"
>> 3) I assign new error code 57P04 which is returned from the backend
>> killed by pg_terminate_backend().
>>
>> #define ERRCODE_TERMINATE_BACKEND MAKE_SQLSTATE('5','7', 'P','0','4')
>
> Anyone has better idea? Tom dislikes my patch but I don't know how to
> deal with it.
There was another design in the past discussion:
>> One idea is postmaster sets a flag in the shared memory area
>> indicating it rceived SIGTERM before forwarding the signal to
>> backends.
Is it enough for your purpose and do we think it is more robust way?
--
Itagaki Takahiro
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: