On 10/11/2015 05:58 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com <mailto:michael.paquier@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Ali Akbar <the.apaan@gmail.com
> <mailto:the.apaan@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > C:\Windows\system32>taskkill /F /PID 2080
> > SUCCESS: The process with PID 2080 has been terminated.
>
> taskkill /f *forcefully* terminates the process targeted [1]. Isn't
> that equivalent to a kill -9? If you headshot a backend process on
> Linux with kill -9, an instance won't restart either.
> [1]:
> http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/taskkill.mspx?mfr=true
>
>
>
> It does. If you want a "gracefull kill" on Windows, you must use
> "pg_ctl kill" which can send an "emulated term-signal".
>
>
Nevertheless, we'd like a hard crash of a backend other than the
postmaster not to have worse effects than on *nix, where killing a
backend even with SIGKILL doesn't halt the server:
andrew=# select pg_backend_pid(); pg_backend_pid ---------------- 24359 (1 row)
andrew=# \! kill -9 24359 andrew=# select 1; server closed the connection unexpectedly This probably
meansthe server terminated abnormally before or while processing the request. The connection to the server was
lost.Attempting reset: Succeeded. andrew=#
Amit's proposals elsewhere to increase the shmem timeout and increase
logging seem reasonable.
cheers
andrew
