[pgpool-general: 4022] Re: potential work-around to safely issue pg_terminate_backend()

[Pablo Sanchez]

[ Comments below, in-line ]


On 09/01/2015 04:33 AM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> FWIW, I successfully tried a SIGINT and a SIGKILL.  The SIGKILL I
>> >don't care for as it cannot be trap()'d by the process.
>
> Yes, SIGTERM, SIGINT a(n)d SIGQUIT cause pgpool child to
> exit. Unfortunately this has a side effect. Pgpool parent will not
> fork a new child if child process exits in this case because the
> child exits with status 0. Pgpool parent only forks new child when
> the child exits with status other than 0.

Hi Tatsuo,

Just so I'm clear, does the above mean the connection pool will have
one less connection available after one of the processes is kill'd?

If so, is there a way to tell PGPool to re-grow its connection pool
back to the original number?  For example, sending PGPool a reload?

Thank you!
--
Pablo Sanchez - Blueoak Database Engineering, Inc
Ph:    819.459.1926         Blog:  http://pablo-blog.blueoakdb.com
iNum:  883.5100.0990.1054