Craig A. James wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> This raises the question: Why doesn't Postgres have a "kill session"
>>> command that works? Oracle has it, and it's invaluable; there is no
>>> substitute. Various writers to these PG lists have raised the
>>> question repeatedly. Is it just a matter that nobody has had the
>>> time to do it (which I respect!), or is there a reason why the
>>> Postgres team decided a "kill session" is a bad idea?
>>
>> I beleive the function to kill a backend is actually in the codebase,
>> it's just commented out because it's considered dangerous. There are
>> some possible issues (see -hackers archives) about sending SIGTERM
>> without actually shutting down the whole cluster.
>>
>> Doing the client-side function to call is the easy part.
>>
>> In many cases you just need to cancel a query, in which case you can use
>> pg_cancel_backend() for exmaple. If you need to actually kill it, your
>> only supported way is to restart postgresql.
>
> In other words, are you confirming that there is no way to kill a query
> from another process, other than shutting down the database? My
> understanding of the documentation tells me I can't use cancel, because
> the process doing the killing isn't the original process.
>
>>> But in spite earlier posting in these forums that say the killing the
>>> backend was the way to go, this doesn't really work. First, even
>>> though the "postgres" backend job is properly killed, a "postmaster"
>>> job keeps running at 99% CPU, which is pretty useless. Killing the
>>> client's backend didn't kill the process actually doing the work!
>>
>> Then you killed the wrong backend...
>> No queries run in postmaster. They all run in postgres backends. The
>> postmaster does very little actual work, other than keeping track of
>> everybody else.
>
> It turns out I was confused by this: ps(1) reports a process called
> "postgres", but top(1) reports a process called "postmaster", but they
> both have the same pid. I guess postmaster replaces its own name in the
> process table when it's executing a query, and it's not really the
> postmaster even though top(1) calls it postmaster.
>
> So "kill -15 <pid>" is NOT killing the process -- to kill the process, I
> have to use signal 9. But if I do that, ALL queries in progress are
> aborted. I might as well shut down and restart the database, which is
> an unacceptable solution for a web site.
>
> I'm back to my original question: How do you kill a runaway query
> without bringing down the whole database? Is there really no answer to
> this?
are you maybe looking for pg_cancel_backend() ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/functions-admin.html#FUNCTIONS-ADMIN-SIGNAL-TABLE
Stefan