MauMau escribió:
> 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;
> }
Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. I haven't tried coding it yet.
> 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.
Well, a natural state name is of no use if we're using it to indicate
two different states, which I think is what would be happening here.
Basically, with your patch, PM_WAIT_BACKENDS means two different things
depending on AbortStartTime.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
