Re: Dangling Client Backend Process

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com, rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Dangling Client Backend Process
Date: 2015-10-14 10:12:27
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2015-10-14 17:33:01 +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> If I recall correctly, he concerned about killing the backends
> running transactions which could be saved. I have a sympathy with
> the opinion.

I still don't. Leaving backends alive after postmaster has died prevents
the auto-restart mechanism to from working from there on. Which means
that we'll potentially continue happily after another backend has
PANICed and potentially corrupted shared memory. Which isn't all that
unlikely if postmaster isn't around anymore.


In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2015-10-14 10:14:36 Re: remaining open items
Previous Message Alexander Korotkov 2015-10-14 09:05:36 Re: Use pg_rewind when target timeline was switched