On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote:
> > > 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. >> [1]: >> >> http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/taskkill.mspx?mfr=true >> >> >> >> 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: > Oh, absolutely. I was just pointing out that something like taskill *should* result in a hard restart of *all* backends, and if you want to kill off just the one you should never use it, you should instead use pg_ctl kill. But of course, none of those two should lead to the scenario explained here where it does not come back up again. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
