why is it bad to kill -9 the postmaster? any links? i'm wondering why
is it bad...

percy

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

shadowbox (AT) punkass (DOT) com wrote:
The postmaster gets no way to shut down cleanly. It just isn't as good
as using a normal kill and waiting a few seconds. This is true for
killing most unix processes. Use kill -9 only when other kills fail.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman (AT) candle (DOT) pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo (AT) postgresql (DOT) org)

On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 15:42:35 +0800,
shadowbox (AT) punkass (DOT) com wrote:
There might be more detail in the FAQ, but what I remember is that the
main issue is that shared memory doesn't necessarily get cleaned up
properly. You don't have to worry about losing committed transactions.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo (AT) postgresql (DOT) org)

shadowbox (AT) punkass (DOT) com writes:
Because then you end up with unreclaimed shared memory and semaphores.
Do this a few times and you'll run into the kernel limits on how much
of either you can have, and then be unable to start a fresh postmaster
without manual cleanup (or rebooting).

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match