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

Re: Server Crash

From: "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Server Crash
Date: 2008-04-22 16:21:41
Message-ID: dcc563d10804220921n688d16f6h4b5f921b5b38b48b@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > From: Scott Marlowe [mailto:scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com]
>
> >> Kill -9 is the "shoot it in the head" signal.  It is not
>  >> generated by postgresql in normal operation.  It can be
>  >> generated by "pg_ctl -m immediate stop" .  At least I think
>  >> that's what signal it sends.
>
>  Just for the archives: Postgres never generates kill -9 at all.
>  (Immediate stop uses SIGQUIT, instead.)  When you see that in
>  the log, you can be sure it was a manual action or the OOM killer.

Thanks.  Just wondering, what's the difference in behavior from
pgsql's perspective from sigquit and siqkill?  Is sigkill more
dangerous than sigquit?

In response to

Responses

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-04-22 16:32:14
Subject: Re: Server Crash
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-04-22 16:06:58
Subject: Re: Server Crash

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