Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A64C2E0083 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:32:24 -0300 (ADT) Received: from developer.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 04117-09 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:32:17 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 856F02E007E for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:32:17 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m3MGWELO022754; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:32:14 -0400 (EDT) To: "Scott Marlowe" cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Server Crash In-reply-to: References: <22376.1208880418@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to "Scott Marlowe" message dated "Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:21:41 -0600" Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:32:14 -0400 Message-ID: <22753.1208881934@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200804/230 X-Sequence-Number: 28994 "Scott Marlowe" 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