Re: Server Crash

From: "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Server Crash
Date: 2008-04-22 16:21:41
Message-ID: dcc563d10804220921n688d16f6h4b5f921b5b38b48b@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > From: Scott Marlowe [mailto:scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com]
>
> >> Kill -9 is the "shoot it in the head" signal. It is not
> >> generated by postgresql in normal operation. It can be
> >> generated by "pg_ctl -m immediate stop" . At least I think
> >> that's what signal it sends.
>
> Just for the archives: Postgres never generates kill -9 at all.
> (Immediate stop uses SIGQUIT, instead.) When you see that in
> the log, you can be sure it was a manual action or the OOM killer.

Thanks. Just wondering, what's the difference in behavior from
pgsql's perspective from sigquit and siqkill? Is sigkill more
dangerous than sigquit?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-04-22 16:32:14 Re: Server Crash
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-04-22 16:06:58 Re: Server Crash