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
    <mailto:the.ap...@gmail.com>> wrote:
    > C:\Windows\system32>taskkill /F /PID 2080
    > SUCCESS: The process with PID 2080 has been terminated.

    taskkill /f *forcefully* terminates the process targeted [1]. 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();
   (1 row)

   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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to