At Wed, 11 Sep 2019 01:36:15 +0000, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote in <0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1FD33579@G01JPEXMBYT05> > From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] > > SIGTERM, which needs to be adjusted. For another, its > > SIGQUIT handler does exit(1) not _exit(2), which seems rather > > dubious ... should we make it more like the rest? I think > > the reasoning there might've been that if some DBA decides to > > SIGQUIT the archiver, we don't need to force a database-wide > > reset; but why exactly should we tolerate that? > > postmaster doesn't distinguish return codes other than 0 for the archiver, > and just starts the archiver unless postmaster is shutting down. So we can > use _exit(2) like the other children. > > Can't we use SIGKILL instead of SIGINT/SIGTERM to stop the grandchildren, > just in case they are slow to respond to or ignore SIGINT/SIGTERM? That > matches the idea of pg_ctl's immediate shutdown.
Perhaps +1.. immediate -> SIGKILL fast -> SIGTERM? > (Windows cannot stop grandchildren because kill() in src/port/kill.c doesn't > support the process group... That's a separate topic.) reagards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
