Andres Freund escribió: > On 2013-06-20 22:36:45 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > If we leave postmaster running after SIGKILLing its children, the only > > thing we can do is have it continue to SIGKILL processes continuously > > every few seconds until they die (or just sit around doing nothing until > > they all die). I don't think this will have a different effect than > > postmaster going away trusting the first SIGKILL to do its job > > eventually. > > I think it should just wait till all its child processes are dead. No > need to repeat sending the signals - as you say, that won't help. OK, I can buy that. So postmaster stays around waiting in ServerLoop until all children are gone; and if any persists for whatever reason, well, tough. > What we could do to improve the robustness a bit - at least on linux - > is to prctl(PR_SET_PDEATHSIG, SIGKILL) which would cause children to be > killed if the postmaster goes away... This is an interesting idea (even if it has no relationship to the patch at hand). -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
