> >> Seems reasonable. Does the victim backend currently know why it has been > >> killed? > > > > I don't think so. > > > > One idea is postmaster sets a flag in the shared memory area > > indicating it rceived SIGTERM before forwarding the signal to > > backends. > > > > Backend check the flag and if it's not set, it knows that the signal > > has been sent by pg_terminate_backend(), not postmaster. > > Or it could also be sent by some other user process, like the user > running "kill" from the shell.
No problem (at least for pgpool-II). If the flag is not set, postgres returns the same code as the one killed by pg_terminate_backend(). The point is, backend is killed by postmaster or not. Because if backend was killed by postmaster, pgpool-II should not expect the PostgreSQL server is usable since postmaster decided to shutdown. -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers