On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I'm wondering if we really need this much complexity around shutting
>> down workers. I'm not sure I understand why we need both a "hard" and
>> a "soft" method of shutting them down. At least on non-Windows
>> systems, it seems like it would be entirely sufficient to just send a
>> SIGTERM when you want them to die. They don't even need to catch it;
>> they can just die.
> At least on my Linux test system, even if all pg_dump processes are
> gone, the server happily continues sending data. When I strace an
> individual backend process, I see a lot of Broken pipe writes, but
> that doesn't stop it from just writing out the whole table to a closed
> file descriptor. This is a 9.0-latest server.
Wow, yuck. At least now I understand why you're doing it like that.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-03-29 10:38:40|
|Subject: Re: Re: pg_stat_statements normalisation without invasive
changes to the parser (was: Next steps on pg_stat_statements normalisation)|
|Previous:||From: Marko Kreen||Date: 2012-03-29 10:12:31|
|Subject: Re: Standbys, txid_current_snapshot, wraparound|