Re: Inconsistencies of service failure handling on Windows

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Michael Paquier
Тема Re: Inconsistencies of service failure handling on Windows
Дата
Msg-id CAB7nPqRpuLVRkN-WJmbnSREiDayRU7MYzA5L2AdPSvto8DqTWA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Inconsistencies of service failure handling on Windows  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:22 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Was that a backend that you directly killed?  Or the postmaster?  The
subsequent connection failures suggest it was the postmaster.  Killing
the postmaster is not a supported operation, not on Windows and not
anywhere else either.  It's in the category of "doctor, it hurts when
I do this".
The headshot was done on random backends. Perhaps in some of those tests the postmaster was taken down though :) I didn't check postmaster.pid all the time.
--
Michael

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Inconsistencies of service failure handling on Windows
Следующее
От: "MauMau"
Дата:
Сообщение: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations