Re: SIGQUIT on archiver child processes maybe not such a hot idea?

On 9/10/19 9:36 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
>> SIGTERM, which needs to be adjusted.  For another, its
>> SIGQUIT handler does exit(1) not _exit(2), which seems rather
>> dubious ... should we make it more like the rest?  I think
>> the reasoning there might've been that if some DBA decides to
>> SIGQUIT the archiver, we don't need to force a database-wide
>> reset; but why exactly should we tolerate that?
> 
> Can't we use SIGKILL instead of SIGINT/SIGTERM to stop the grandchildren, just in case they are slow to respond to or
ignoreSIGINT/SIGTERM?  That matches the idea of pg_ctl's immediate shutdown.
 

-1, at least not immediately.  Archivers can be complex processes and  
they should be given the chance to do a graceful shutdown.

Regards,
-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net