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

Re: pgsql/src backend/tcop/postgres.c include/misc ...

From: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pgsql/src backend/tcop/postgres.c include/misc ...
Date: 2002-01-07 02:17:22
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-committers
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> >> Doesn't bother me a whole lot; I don't think that's what the die
> >> interrupt is for.  In my mind the main reason die() exists is to
> >> behave reasonably when the system is being shut down and init has
> >> sent SIGTERM to all processes.
> > In my mind the main reason die() exists is to kill individual
> > backends which seems to be in trouble without causing
> > the database-wide restart.
> [ raises eyebrow ]  That isn't recommended procedure or even documented
> anywhere, AFAIR. 

I don't call it a dbms unless it has a will to limit a
trouble locally. 
Anyway it seems too late to complain. I was foolish enough
to have overlooked the very significant change that introduced
the dominant ImmediateInterruptOK variable.
Sigh... Where were my eyes ?

Hiroshi Inoue

In response to

pgsql-committers by date

Next:From: petereDate: 2002-01-07 02:29:19
Subject: pgsql/ oc/src/sgml/biblio.sgml oc/src/sgml/dat ...
Previous:From: tglDate: 2002-01-06 21:40:08
Subject: pgsql/src/backend/postmaster postmaster.c

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group