| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: How to know killed by pg_terminate_backend |
| Date: | 2010-05-14 12:06:33 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTil5fOjAV14F68OV78d5VOrzawMvTkIrlgsiwUy5@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
>> > Maybe we could make PostgreSQL a little bit smarter so that it returns
>> > a different code than 57P01 when killed by pg_terminate_backend().
>>
>> Seems reasonable. Does the victim backend currently know why it has been
>> killed?
>
> I don't think so.
>
> One idea is postmaster sets a flag in the shared memory area
> indicating it rceived SIGTERM before forwarding the signal to
> backends.
>
> Backend check the flag and if it's not set, it knows that the signal
> has been sent by pg_terminate_backend(), not postmaster.
Or it could also be sent by some other user process, like the user
running "kill" from the shell.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Florian Pflug | 2010-05-14 12:26:26 | Re: Row-level Locks & SERIALIZABLE transactions, postgres vs. Oracle |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-05-14 11:56:11 | Re: Synchronous replication patch built on SR |