Re: kill -KILL: What happens?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: kill -KILL: What happens?
Date: 2011-01-14 00:32:15
Message-ID: 20905.1294965135@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Killing active sessions when it's not absolutely necessary is not an
>> asset.

> That's a highly arguable point and I certainly don't agree with it.

Your examples appear to rely on the assumption that background processes
exit instantly when the postmaster dies. Which they should not.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Florian Pflug 2011-01-14 00:57:02 Re: kill -KILL: What happens?
Previous Message Tatsuo Ishii 2011-01-14 00:31:07 Re: Error code for "terminating connection due to conflict with recovery"