| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 01:10:26 |
| Message-ID: | 21351.1294967426@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
> I don't believe there's one right answer to that.
Right. Force-kill presumes there is only one right answer.
> Assume postgres is driving a website, and the postmaster crashes shortly
> after a pg_dump run started. You probably won't want your website to be
> offline while pg_dump is finishing its backup.
> If, on the other hand, your data warehousing database is running a
> multi-hour query, you might prefer that query to finish, even at the price
> of not being able to accept new connections.
> So maybe there should be a GUC for this?
No need (and rather inflexible anyway). If you don't want an orphaned
backend to continue, you send it SIGTERM.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-14 01:19:41 | Re: kill -KILL: What happens? |
| Previous Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-01-14 00:57:02 | Re: kill -KILL: What happens? |