Re: why not kill -9 postmaster - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Andreas Seltenreich
Subject Re: why not kill -9 postmaster
Date
Msg-id 87y7rb2nnb.fsf@gate450.dyndns.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: why not kill -9 postmaster  (Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>)
Responses Re: why not kill -9 postmaster  (Shane Ambler <pgsql@007Marketing.com>)
List pgsql-general
Ron Johnson writes:

> On 10/20/06 05:27, Andreas Seltenreich wrote:
>> ,----[ <http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/postmaster-shutdown.html#AEN18182> ]
>> | It is best not to use SIGKILL to shut down the server. Doing so will
>> | prevent the server from releasing shared memory and semaphores,
>> | which may then have to be done manually before a new server can be
>> | started. Furthermore, SIGKILL kills the postmaster process without
>> | letting it relay the signal to its subprocesses, so it will be
>> | necessary to kill the individual subprocesses by hand as well.
>> `----
>
> But it can't be fatal, can it?

While it could be fixed by hand, the list archives tell that it was
fatal enough for some to shoot themselves in their feet.

> After all, that's what a system crash is, right?

A system crash is safer in that it won't leave orphaned child
processes or IPC/synchronization resources around, making it more
comparable to a SIGQUIT than a SIGKILL.

regards,
andreas

Attachment

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Uyelik
Date:
Subject: Where is the pg_terminate_backend() function? Way to execute shell cmd
Next
From: Ron Peterson
Date:
Subject: c function returning high resolution timestamp