Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2015-06-19 11:16:18 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >>> I wonder whether it's such a good idea for the postmaster to give
> >>> up waiting before all children are gone (postmaster.c:1722 in HEAD).
>
> >> I doubt it.
>
> > Seconded. It's pretty bad to possibly not be able to start again after
> > stopping it. I don't see the benefit in not waiting - sure, the
> > poastmaster exits faster, but postgres hasn't shut down at that point...
>
> Yeah. I'll see about fixing this. Hard to be sure if it will fix
> hamster's issue though.
We discussed this when that patch got in (82233ce7ea42d6b). The reason
for not waiting, it was argued, is that the most likely reason for those
processes not to have already gone away by the time we send SIGKILL was
that they are stuck somewhere in the kernel, and so we might not be able
to actually get them to go away with the SIGKILL. As I recall, that was
the actual problem that MauMau was trying to get fixed.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
