From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Server Crash
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:32:14 -0400
Message-ID: <22753.1208881934@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dcc563d10804220921n688d16f6h4b5f921b5b38b48b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AFD16ED07E37C64D963DA24840AA31F2035248C5@EVSCO01.na.vishayint.com>
<22376.1208880418@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<dcc563d10804220921n688d16f6h4b5f921b5b38b48b@mail.gmail.com>
"Scott Marlowe" <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> writes:
> Thanks. Just wondering, what's the difference in behavior from
> pgsql's perspective from sigquit and siqkill? Is sigkill more
> dangerous than sigquit?
Yes it is, because sigkill can't be trapped --- it causes instant
process death with no chance to clean up. Not that we have backends
do a lot of cleanup after sigquit either, but at least the option
exists. The real difference is in the postmaster: kill -9 on the
postmaster is a seriously bad idea, because it gets no chance to shut
down its children.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, scott.marlowe@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Server Crash
In-Reply-To: <22753.1208881934@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox