Re: pgsql/src backend/tcop/postgres.c include/misc ... - Mailing list pgsql-committers

From Hiroshi Inoue
Subject Re: pgsql/src backend/tcop/postgres.c include/misc ...
Date
Msg-id EKEJJICOHDIEMGPNIFIJCEADGGAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pgsql/src backend/tcop/postgres.c include/misc ...  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: pgsql/src backend/tcop/postgres.c include/misc ...  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-committers
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> > Now I realize that 7.1 already changed the handling of
> > die interrupts fundamentally. For example we can't kill
> > the backend which is in a trouble with an infinite loop.
> > Was it an intended change ?
>
> Doesn't bother me a whole lot; I don't think that's what the die
> interrupt is for.  In my mind the main reason die() exists is to
> behave reasonably when the system is being shut down and init has
> sent SIGTERM to all processes.

In my mind the main reason die() exists is to kill individual
backends which seems to be in trouble without causing
the database-wide restart.
Before 7.1 QueryCancel flag was checked at the points
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS are currently placed.
But the QueryCancel flag had nothing to do with die
interrupts.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue

pgsql-committers by date:

Previous
From: tgl@postgresql.org
Date:
Subject: pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref createlang.sgml droplan ...
Next
From: momjian@postgresql.org
Date:
Subject: pgsql/doc/src/sgml ecpg.sgml