Re: [HACKERS] Immediate shutdown and system(3)

2009-03-18 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Ok, I've committed a minimal patch to pg_standby in CVS HEAD and REL8_3_STABLE to not interpret SIGQUIT as a signal for failover. I added a signal handler for SIGUSR1 to trigger failover; that should be considered the preferred signal for that, even though SIGINT still works too. SIGQUIT is

Re: [HACKERS] Immediate shutdown and system(3)

2009-03-18 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Andrew Dunstan wrote: Heikki Linnakangas wrote: This should be mentioned in release notes, as any script that might be using SIGQUIT at the moment needs to be changed to use SIGUSR1 or SIGINT instead. Where should I make a note of that so that we don't forget? Unless I'm missing it the use

Re: [HACKERS] Immediate shutdown and system(3)

2009-03-18 Thread Bruce Momjian
Heikki Linnakangas wrote: This should be mentioned in release notes, as any script that might be using SIGQUIT at the moment needs to be changed to use SIGUSR1 or SIGINT instead. Where should I make a note of that so that we don't forget? The CVS commit message. -- Bruce Momjian

Re: [HACKERS] Immediate shutdown and system(3)

2009-03-18 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: Heikki Linnakangas wrote: This should be mentioned in release notes, as any script that might be using SIGQUIT at the moment needs to be changed to use SIGUSR1 or SIGINT instead. Where should I make a note of that so that

Re: [HACKERS] Immediate shutdown and system(3)

2009-03-18 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: The CVS commit message. Is there some reason we don't just put it in the release notes as *part* of the commit? Someone can always go back and edit it later. That was suggested

Re: [HACKERS] Immediate shutdown and system(3)

2009-03-18 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: The CVS commit message. Is there some reason we don't just put it in the release notes as *part* of the commit?

Re: [HACKERS] Immediate shutdown and system(3)

2009-03-18 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Ok, I've committed a minimal patch to pg_standby in CVS HEAD and REL8_3_STABLE to not interpret SIGQUIT as a signal for failover. I added a signal handler for SIGUSR1 to trigger failover; that should be considered the preferred signal for that, even though SIGINT

Re: [HACKERS] Immediate shutdown and system(3)

2009-03-04 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Per discussion, here's a patch for pg_standby in REL8_3_STABLE. The signal handling is changed so that SIGQUIT no longer triggers failover, but immediately kills pg_standby, triggering FATAL death of the startup process too. That's what you want with immediate shutdown. SIGUSR1 is now

Re: [HACKERS] Immediate shutdown and system(3)

2009-03-04 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Fujii Masao wrote: Hi, On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: Fujii Masao wrote: On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: I'm leaning towards option 3, but I wonder if anyone sees a

Re: [HACKERS] Immediate shutdown and system(3)

2009-03-03 Thread Zdenek Kotala
Dne 2.03.09 08:59, Heikki Linnakangas napsal(a): Fujii Masao wrote: On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: I'm leaning towards option 3, but I wonder if anyone sees a better solution. 4. Use the shared memory to tell the startup

Re: [HACKERS] Immediate shutdown and system(3)

2009-03-03 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Zdenek Kotala wrote: Dne 2.03.09 08:59, Heikki Linnakangas napsal(a): Fujii Masao wrote: On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: I'm leaning towards option 3, but I wonder if anyone sees a better solution. 4. Use the shared memory to

Re: [HACKERS] Immediate shutdown and system(3)

2009-03-03 Thread Fujii Masao
Hi, On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: Fujii Masao wrote: On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: I'm leaning towards option 3, but I wonder if anyone sees a better solution.

Re: [HACKERS] Immediate shutdown and system(3)

2009-03-02 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Fujii Masao wrote: On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: I'm leaning towards option 3, but I wonder if anyone sees a better solution. 4. Use the shared memory to tell the startup process about the shutdown state. When a shutdown signal

Re: [HACKERS] Immediate shutdown and system(3)

2009-03-02 Thread ITAGAKI Takahiro
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: 1. Implement a custom version of system(3) using fork+exec that let's us trap SIGQUIT and send e.g SIGTERM or SIGINT to the child instead. It might be a bit tricky to get this right in a portable way; Windows would certainly

Re: [HACKERS] Immediate shutdown and system(3)

2009-03-01 Thread Fujii Masao
Hi, On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: We're using SIGQUIT to signal immediate shutdown request. Upon receiving SIGQUIT, postmaster in turn kills all the child processes with SIGQUIT and exits. This is a problem when child processes

[HACKERS] Immediate shutdown and system(3)

2009-02-27 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
We're using SIGQUIT to signal immediate shutdown request. Upon receiving SIGQUIT, postmaster in turn kills all the child processes with SIGQUIT and exits. This is a problem when child processes use system(3) to call other programs. We use system(3) in two places: to execute archive_command

Re: [HACKERS] Immediate shutdown and system(3)

2009-02-27 Thread Greg Stark
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: 2. Use a signal other than SIGQUIT for immediate shutdown of child processes. We can't change the signal sent to postmaster for backwards-compatibility reasons, but the signal sent by postmaster to

Re: [HACKERS] Immediate shutdown and system(3)

2009-02-27 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Greg Stark wrote: This isn't the first time we've run into the problem that we've run out of signals. I think we need to multiplex all our event signals onto a single signal and use some other mechanism to indicate the type of message. Yeah. A patch to do that was discussed a while ago, as

Re: [HACKERS] Immediate shutdown and system(3)

2009-02-27 Thread Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes: Greg Stark wrote: This isn't the first time we've run into the problem that we've run out of signals. I think we need to multiplex all our event signals onto a single signal and use some other mechanism to indicate the type of