Re: Immediate shutdown and system(3)

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Immediate shutdown and system(3)
Date: 2009-03-02 07:59:44
Message-ID: 49AB91F0.2010304@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> I'm leaning towards option 3, but I wonder if anyone sees a better solution.
>
> 4. Use the shared memory to tell the startup process about the shutdown state.
> When a shutdown signal arrives, postmaster sets the corresponding shutdown
> state to the shared memory before signaling to the child processes. The startup
> process check the shutdown state whenever executing system(), and determine
> how to exit according to that state. This solution doesn't change any existing
> behavior of pg_standby. What is your opinion?

That would only solve the problem for pg_standby. Other programs you
might use as a restore_command or archive_command like "cp" or "rsync"
would still core dump on the SIGQUIT.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2009-03-02 08:26:25 Re: xpath processing brain dead
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2009-03-02 06:24:21 Re: WIP: named and mixed notation support