Re: elog(FATAL) vs shared memory

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Mark Shuttleworth
Тема Re: elog(FATAL) vs shared memory
Дата
Msg-id 46174A23.7010404@ubuntu.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: elog(FATAL) vs shared memory  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote: <blockquote cite="mid14772.1175879965@sss.pgh.pa.us" type="cite"><pre wrap="">Stuart Bishop <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"href="mailto:stuart.bishop@canonical.com"><stuart.bishop@canonical.com></a> writes:
</pre><blockquotetype="cite"><pre wrap="">After a test is run, the test harness kills any outstanding connections so
 
we can drop the test database. Without this, a failing test could leave open
connections dangling causing the drop database to block.   </pre></blockquote><pre wrap="">
Just to make it perfectly clear: we don't consider SIGTERMing individual
backends to be a supported operation (maybe someday, but not today).
That's why you had to resort to plpythonu to do this.  I hope you don't
have anything analogous in your production databases ... </pre></blockquote> Ah, that could explain it. With the recent
patchesit seems to be working OK, but I guess we should find a more standard way to rejig the db during the test
runs.<br/><br /> Mark<br /> 

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?
Следующее
От: Stuart Bishop
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: elog(FATAL) vs shared memory