Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 14:26:29 -0400 From: Jason Tishler To: Fred Yankowski Cc: pgsql-cygwin AT postgresql DOT org, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: SIGTERM does not stop backend postgres processes immediately Message-ID: <20010509142629.J355@dothill.com> Mail-Followup-To: Fred Yankowski , pgsql-cygwin AT postgresql DOT org, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20010509094031.A87424@enteract.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i Organization: Dot Hill Systems Corp. Fred, On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 09:40:31AM -0500, Fred Yankowski wrote: > The problem I'm seeing, where a postgres backend process doesn't react > immediately to SIGTERM, occurs even when there is only one such > backend process, so this may be a different problem from the one > described in those earlier threads and recently fixed in CVS. This is my assessment too. > I'm seeing this problem as I test my patch for running postgres as an > NT service. But I just tried running postmaster directly from the > shell and I see the same problem. I was able to reproduce your finding under Cygwin too. When I repeated the experiment under Linux, postmaster shutdown as expected. > I know from inserting printfs into the backend code that the SIGTERM > signal handler function is not being called right after the stop > request. Rather, it is called only after the backend gets some data > over its input socket connection, from that "\d" in did in pg_ctl in > this case. It seems that the recv() call deep in the backend code > does not get interrupted by the SIGTERM. IMO, you have found a Cygwin bug. Please report it to the Cygwin list. Hopefully, Mr. Signal is listening and will jump into action... Can you produce a minimal test case that demonstrates the problem? > On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 10:05:19PM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote: > > However, I have not built PostgreSQL with Cygwin 1.3.1 -- I have only run > > it against Cygwin 1.3.1. What happens when you run make check? Does the > > postmaster exit cleanly at the end of the regression test as expected? > > I'm a little confused about the distinction you're making between > "Cygwin 1.3.1" and "Cygwin 1.3.1". ;-) Sorry, for being unclear. What I was trying to say was that my builds of PostgreSQL are really against Cygwin 1.1.8 (with only cygwin1.dll replaced to workaround the mmap/fork problem). I have never built against Cygwin 1.3.1. However, I do run against Cygwin 1.3.1 on one of my test machines. > Anyway, "make check" completes without any errors. No apparent hangs. Which again confirms that this is a different and yet to be solved problem. Jason -- Jason Tishler Director, Software Engineering Phone: +1 (732) 264-8770 x235 Dot Hill Systems Corp. Fax: +1 (732) 264-8798 82 Bethany Road, Suite 7 Email: Jason DOT Tishler AT dothill DOT com Hazlet, NJ 07730 USA WWW: http://www.dothill.com -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple