Re: (Never?) Kill Postmaster?
От | Scott Marlowe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: (Never?) Kill Postmaster? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | dcc563d10711011203y7b60a6fbs247cdb3efc1d2ff@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: (Never?) Kill Postmaster? (Christian Schröder <cs@deriva.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: (Never?) Kill Postmaster?
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On 10/31/07, Christian Schröder <cs@deriva.de> wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Ok, you wrote "Postgres will recover automatically", but could this take > >> several minutes? > >> > > > > Yeah, potentially. I don't suppose you have any idea how long it'd been > > since your last checkpoint, but what do you have checkpoint_timeout and > > checkpoint_segments set to? > > > > I did not change these parameters from their default values, so > checkpoint_timeout is 5 min and checkpoint_segments is 8. > > > What I'd like to know about is why the child process was unresponsive to > > SIGINT in the first place. There's little we can do about long-running > > plpython functions, for instance, but if it was looping in Postgres > > proper then we should do something about that. Can you reproduce this > > problem easily? > > > > Unfortunately not. I have tried the same query and it took only about 1 > sec to complete. In fact, it's a simple seq scan with a single filter > condition. No user defined functions are involved. > Maybe it has something to do with the users connecting from their > Windows machines to the PostgreSQL server using psqlodbc. On the other > hand, it has not been the first time that such a user connection had to > be terminated and we did never experience this problem. > If I see the phenomenon again I will use strace or something similar to > find out what the backend process is doing. Tom, is it possible the backend was doing something that couldn't be immediately interrupted, like a long wait on IO or something?
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: