On 10/11/2015 05:58 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paqu...@gmail.com <mailto:michael.paqu...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Ali Akbar <the.ap...@gmail.com
> C:\Windows\system32>taskkill /F /PID 2080
> SUCCESS: The process with PID 2080 has been terminated.
taskkill /f *forcefully* terminates the process targeted . 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.
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();
andrew=# \! kill -9 24359
andrew=# select 1;
server closed the connection unexpectedly
This probably means the server terminated abnormally
before or while processing the request.
The connection to the server was lost. Attempting reset: Succeeded.
Amit's proposals elsewhere to increase the shmem timeout and increase
logging seem reasonable.
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: