Denis Perchine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hmmm... actually this is real problem with vacuum lazy. Sometimes it > just do something for enormous amount of time (I have mailed a sample > database to Vadim, but did not get any response yet). It is possible, > that it was me, who killed the backend. Killing an individual backend with SIGTERM is bad luck. The backend will assume that it's being killed by the postmaster, and will exit without a whole lot of concern for cleaning up shared memory --- the expectation is that as soon as all the backends are dead, the postmaster will reinitialize shared memory. You can get away with sending SIGINT (QueryCancel) to an individual backend. Anything else voids the warranty ;=) But, having said that --- this VACUUM process had only been running for two minutes of real time. Seems unlikely that you'd have chosen to kill it so quickly. regards, tom lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Quite strange cra... Denis Perchine
- Re: [HACKERS] Quite strange cra... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Quite strange cra... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Quite strange cra... Denis Perchine
- Re: [HACKERS] Quite strange cra... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Quite strange cra... Denis Perchine
- Re: [HACKERS] Quite strange cra... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Quite strange cra... Nathan Myers
- Re: [HACKERS] Quite strange cra... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Quite strange crash Denis Perchine
- RE: [HACKERS] Quite strange cra... Tom Lane
- RE: [HACKERS] Quite strange crash Mikheev, Vadim
- Re: [HACKERS] Quite strange crash Tom Lane
- RE: [HACKERS] Quite strange crash Mikheev, Vadim
- Re: [HACKERS] Quite strange crash Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Quite strange crash Alfred Perlstein
- Re: [HACKERS] Quite strange crash Vadim Mikheev
- RE: [HACKERS] Quite strange crash Mikheev, Vadim
- Re: [HACKERS] Quite strange crash Tom Lane
- RE: [HACKERS] Quite strange crash Mikheev, Vadim
- Re: [HACKERS] Quite strange crash Tom Lane