Re: A new function to wait for the backend exit after termination
От | David G. Johnston |
---|---|
Тема | Re: A new function to wait for the backend exit after termination |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAKFQuwY1P6fp6-3TJL0MzARK8R1f_An6tG4UQnLUn33JxYZqVQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: A new function to wait for the backend exit after termination (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: A new function to wait for the backend exit after termination
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 6:13 AM Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 3:02 PM Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:Hi,Currently pg_terminate_backend(), sends SIGTERM to the backend process but doesn't ensure it's exit. There are chances that backends still are running(even after pg_terminate_backend() is called) until the interrupts are processed(using ProcessInterrupts()). This could cause problems especially in testing, for instance in a sql file right after pg_terminate_backend(), if any test case depends on the backend's non-existence[1], but the backend is not terminated. As discussed in [1], we have wait_pid()(see regress.c and sql/dblink.sql), but it's not usable across the system. In [1], we thought it would be better to have functions ensuring the backend's exit on the similar lines of pg_terminate_backend().I propose to have two functions:1. pg_terminate_backend_and_wait() -- which sends SIGTERM to the backend and wait's until it's exit.I think it would be nicer to have a pg_terminate_backend(pid, wait=false), so a function with a second parameter which defaults to the current behaviour of not waiting. And it might be a good idea to also give it a timeout parameter?
Agreed on the overload, and the timeouts make sense too - with the caller deciding whether a timeout results in a failure or a false return value.
2. pg_wait_backend() -- which waits for a given backend process. Note that this function has to be used carefully after pg_terminate_backend(), if used on a backend that's not ternmited it simply keeps waiting in a loop.It seems this one also very much would need a timeout value.
Is there a requirement for waiting to be superuser only? You are not affecting any session but your own during the waiting period.
I could imagine, in theory at least, wanting to wait for a backend to go idle as well as for it disappearing. Scope creep in terms of this patch's goal but worth at least considering now.
David J.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: