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

Re: patch for parallel pg_dump

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Subject: Re: patch for parallel pg_dump
Date: 2012-03-29 10:33:38
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I'm wondering if we really need this much complexity around shutting
>> down workers.  I'm not sure I understand why we need both a "hard" and
>> a "soft" method of shutting them down.  At least on non-Windows
>> systems, it seems like it would be entirely sufficient to just send a
>> SIGTERM when you want them to die.  They don't even need to catch it;
>> they can just die.
> At least on my Linux test system, even if all pg_dump processes are
> gone, the server happily continues sending data. When I strace an
> individual backend process, I see a lot of Broken pipe writes, but
> that doesn't stop it from just writing out the whole table to a closed
> file descriptor. This is a 9.0-latest server.

Wow, yuck.  At least now I understand why you're doing it like that.

Robert Haas
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-03-29 10:38:40
Subject: Re: Re: pg_stat_statements normalisation without invasive changes to the parser (was: Next steps on pg_stat_statements normalisation)
Previous:From: Marko KreenDate: 2012-03-29 10:12:31
Subject: Re: Standbys, txid_current_snapshot, wraparound

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