Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pgsql/src backend/tcop/postgres.c include/misc ...

From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pgsql/src backend/tcop/postgres.c include/misc ...
Date: 2002-01-06 09:46:29
Message-ID: EKEJJICOHDIEMGPNIFIJCEADGGAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> 
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > Now I realize that 7.1 already changed the handling of 
> > die interrupts fundamentally. For example we can't kill
> > the backend which is in a trouble with an infinite loop.
> > Was it an intended change ?
> 
> Doesn't bother me a whole lot; I don't think that's what the die
> interrupt is for.  In my mind the main reason die() exists is to
> behave reasonably when the system is being shut down and init has
> sent SIGTERM to all processes. 

In my mind the main reason die() exists is to kill individual 
backends which seems to be in trouble without causing
the database-wide restart.
Before 7.1 QueryCancel flag was checked at the points
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS are currently placed.
But the QueryCancel flag had nothing to do with die
interrupts. 

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue 

In response to

Responses

pgsql-committers by date

Next:From: momjianDate: 2002-01-06 17:54:14
Subject: pgsql/doc/src/sgml ecpg.sgml
Previous:From: tglDate: 2002-01-06 03:33:26
Subject: pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref createlang.sgml droplan ...

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group