On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org> writes: >> I don't believe there's one right answer to that. > > Right. Force-kill presumes there is only one right answer. > >> Assume postgres is driving a website, and the postmaster crashes shortly >> after a pg_dump run started. You probably won't want your website to be >> offline while pg_dump is finishing its backup. > >> If, on the other hand, your data warehousing database is running a >> multi-hour query, you might prefer that query to finish, even at the price >> of not being able to accept new connections. > >> So maybe there should be a GUC for this? > > No need (and rather inflexible anyway). If you don't want an orphaned > backend to continue, you send it SIGTERM.
It is not easy to make this work in such a way that you can ensure a clean, automatic restart of PostgreSQL after a postmaster death. Which is what at least some people want. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
