Tom is there new wording we can agree on?
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Not sure. My admin tool is more proof of concept at this point. I
> > think ultimately we will need to allow administrators to such individual
> > backend terminations.
>
> I hope the tool is set up to e
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Not sure. My admin tool is more proof of concept at this point. I
> think ultimately we will need to allow administrators to such individual
> backend terminations.
I hope the tool is set up to encourage them to try something safer
(ie, CANCEL QUERY)
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Not sure. My admin tool is more proof of concept at this point. I
> > think ultimately we will need to allow administrators to such individual
> > backend terminations.
>
> I hope the tool is set up to encourage them to try something safer
> (ie,
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I am using the SIGTERM in my administration application to allow
> > administrators to kill individual backends. That is why I noticed the
> > message.
>
> Hm. Of course the backend cannot tell the difference between this use
> of SIGTERM and its
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am using the SIGTERM in my administration application to allow
> administrators to kill individual backends. That is why I noticed the
> message.
Hm. Of course the backend cannot tell the difference between this use
of SIGTERM and its normal use for
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> This is a non-improvement. Please reverse it. SIGTERM would only be
> >> sent to a backend if the database system were in fact shutting down.
>
> > But why say the system is shutting down if the backend is shutting down.
> > See
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Also, what signal should people send to a backend to kill just that
> > backend?
>
> I don't know that we do or should recommend such a thing at all ...
> but SIGTERM should work if anything does (and it is, not coincidentally,
> the default kind of
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, what signal should people send to a backend to kill just that
> backend?
I don't know that we do or should recommend such a thing at all ...
but SIGTERM should work if anything does (and it is, not coincidentally,
the default kind of signal for ki
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> This is a non-improvement. Please reverse it. SIGTERM would only be
> >> sent to a backend if the database system were in fact shutting down.
>
> > But why say the system is shutting down if the backend is shutting down.
> > Seems the postmaster
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This is a non-improvement. Please reverse it. SIGTERM would only be
>> sent to a backend if the database system were in fact shutting down.
> But why say the system is shutting down if the backend is shutting down.
> Seems the postmaster should say s
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I have applied the following patch to make SIGTERM backend exit clearer
> > in the the server logs. "The system" is not really shutting down, but
> > "the backend" is shutting down.
>
> This is a non-improvement. Please reverse it. SIGTERM would
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I have applied the following patch to make SIGTERM backend exit clearer
> > in the the server logs. "The system" is not really shutting down, but
> > "the backend" is shutting down.
>
> This is a non-improvement. Please reverse it. SIGTERM would
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have applied the following patch to make SIGTERM backend exit clearer
> in the the server logs. "The system" is not really shutting down, but
> "the backend" is shutting down.
This is a non-improvement. Please reverse it. SIGTERM would only be
sent
I have applied the following patch to make SIGTERM backend exit clearer
in the the server logs. "The system" is not really shutting down, but
"the backend" is shutting down.
Should we be showing the PID's in the server logs more. Do we need to
enable that somewhere? Seems they are very hard to
14 matches
Mail list logo
