X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47D6F9FB2E0 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 02:50:36 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 25257-10 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 02:50:30 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F65E9FB2A2 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 02:50:31 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k6E5oM7S008781; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 01:50:22 -0400 (EDT) To: "Craig A. James" cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, sgunderson@bigfoot.com Subject: Re: Kill a session In-reply-to: <44B70017.6000703@modgraph-usa.com> References: <6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCEA0FAE8@algol.sollentuna.se> <44B51896.1000808@modgraph-usa.com> <20060712170404.GA27392@uio.no> <44B70017.6000703@modgraph-usa.com> Comments: In-reply-to "Craig A. James" message dated "Thu, 13 Jul 2006 19:23:19 -0700" Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 01:50:22 -0400 Message-ID: <8780.1152856222@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200607/140 X-Sequence-Number: 20000 "Craig A. James" writes: > Bottom line is that I was expecting "instant death" with SIGTERM, but > instead got an agonizing, drawn out -- but safe -- death of the query. What was the query exactly? Our expectation is that all or at least most queries should respond to SIGINT or SIGTERM interrupts pretty rapidly, say on a less-than-a-second timescale. However there are various loops in the backend that fail to execute CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS sufficiently often :-(. We've been gradually finding and fixing these, and will be glad to fix your case if you provide enough details to pin it down. You might be interested in this current thread about a similar problem: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-07/msg00039.php regards, tom lane