From: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com>
Actually, I think it would be cleaner to have a new state in pmState,
namely PM_IMMED_SHUTDOWN which is entered when we send SIGQUIT. When
we're in this state, postmaster is only waiting for the timeout to
expire; and when it does, it sends SIGKILL and exits. Pretty much the
same you have, except that instead of checking AbortStartTime we check
the pmState variable.
Are you suggesting simplifying the following part in ServerLoop()? I
welcome the idea if this condition becomes simpler. However, I cannot
imagine how.
if (AbortStartTime > 0 && /* SIGKILL only once */
(Shutdown == ImmediateShutdown || (FatalError && !SendStop)) &&
now - AbortStartTime >= 10)
{
SignalAllChildren(SIGKILL);
AbortStartTime = 0;
}
I thought of adding some new state of pmState for some reason (that might be
the same as your idea).
But I refrained from doing that, because pmState has already many states. I
was afraid adding a new pmState value for this bug fix would complicate the
state management (e.g. state transition in PostmasterStateMachine()). In
addition, I felt PM_WAIT_BACKENDS was appropriate because postmaster is
actually waiting for backends to terminate after sending SIGQUIT. The state
name is natural.
I don't have strong objection to your idea if it makes the code cleaner and
more understandable. Thank you very much.
Regards
MauMau
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
