| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_terminate_backend() issues |
| Date: | 2008-04-16 14:57:55 |
| Message-ID: | 87fxtlx2x8.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> [We would also have to block SIGTERM around the second cancel_shmem_exit and
>> cleanup_routine, no? Or if it's idempotent (actually, wouldn't it have to be?)
>> run them in the reverse order.]
>
> No, we wouldn't, because a SIGTERM can only actually fire at a
> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() call. You'd just need to be sure there wasn't
> one in the cleanup code.
Wait, huh? In that case I don't see what advantage any of this has over
Bruce's patch. And his approach seemed a lot more robust.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production Tuning
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-04-16 15:05:39 | Re: pg_terminate_backend() issues |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-04-16 14:51:22 | Re: pg_terminate_backend() issues |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-04-16 15:05:39 | Re: pg_terminate_backend() issues |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-04-16 14:53:02 | Re: pgwin32_safestat weirdness |