Re: Do we need to do better for pg_ctl timeouts?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Do we need to do better for pg_ctl timeouts?
Date: 2019-06-24 15:53:39
Message-ID: 36dd4124-3951-0e91-a7c9-070dbcbc8f68@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2019-06-20 18:33, Andres Freund wrote:
> I wonder if we need to split the timeout into two: One value for
> postmaster to acknowledge the action, one for that action to
> complete. It seems to me that that'd be useful for all of starting,
> restarting and stopping.
>
> I think we have all the necessary information in the pid file, we would
> just need to check for PM_STATUS_STARTING for start, PM_STATUS_STOPPING
> for restart/stop.

A related thing I came across the other day: systemd has a new
sd_notify() functionality EXTEND_TIMEOUT_USEC where the service can
notify systemd to extend the timeout. I think that's the same idea:
You want to timeout if you're stuck, but you want to keep going as long
as you're doing useful work.

So yes, improving that would be welcome.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John Naylor 2019-06-24 16:01:16 Re: benchmarking Flex practices
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-06-24 15:34:01 Re: Misleading comment about single_copy, and some bikeshedding