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

Re: pg_ctl vs. Windows locking

From: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>,pgsql-hackers-win32 <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_ctl vs. Windows locking
Date: 2004-06-14 16:23:31
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32
On 6/14/2004 11:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote:

> Maybe we should redesign the shutdown sequence so that the stats
> processes get killed quicker.  Offhand it seems to me that we could kill
> the stats buffer process as soon as the last normal backend is gone, and
> let the stats collector process do its shutdown in parallel with the
> shutdown checkpoint.  I don't believe that a checkpoint operation will
> send anything to pgstats, so this wouldn't lose any stats data.
> Arguably it would make it more likely that the stats data gets written
> --- in the current scheme, the stats collector is the last out the door
> and thus in pretty serious risk of being SIGKILL'd by init, if we are in
> an init-driven shutdown.

Yes, killing (or rather closing the pipe to it) early is probably the 
right idea.

The claim it wouldn't carry over the stats is wrong. Worst case an 
instantaneously restarting postmaster firing off a new collector before 
the old one has written the final stats can cause stats collected during 
the last 500 milliseconds to be lost. The new collector could open the 
old stats file before the old collector did the rename.

We don't guarantee loss free stats by design anyway, so some stats lost 
due to a too fast restarting postmaster aren't any worse than stats lost 
due to a dropped UDP packet.


# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

In response to


pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-06-14 16:27:02
Subject: Re: pg_ctl vs. Windows locking
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-06-14 15:55:50
Subject: Re: pg_ctl vs. Windows locking

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group