From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS33070 50.56.128.0/17 X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,RDNS_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-Original-To: archivist@yhbt.net Delivered-To: archivist@dcvr.yhbt.net Received: from rubyforge.org (unknown [50.56.192.79]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5018644C217 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 18:49:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rubyforge.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E91D263089; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 18:49:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: mongrel-unicorn@rubyforge.org Delivered-To: mongrel-unicorn@rubyforge.org Received: from dcvr.yhbt.net (dcvr.yhbt.net [64.71.152.64]) by rubyforge.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 910C1263089 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 18:48:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (dcvr.yhbt.net [127.0.0.1]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6328F44C216; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 18:48:49 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 18:48:49 +0000 From: Eric Wong To: unicorn list Subject: Re: unblock function in pg messes up with unicorn Message-ID: <20131206184849.GA27820@dcvr.yhbt.net> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-BeenThere: mongrel-unicorn@rubyforge.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: mongrel-unicorn-bounces@rubyforge.org Errors-To: mongrel-unicorn-bounces@rubyforge.org Sam Saffron wrote: > 1. Is this a pg bug? How could they even implement a ubf in such a way > that it does not stop queries when signals are sent? The main issue is > that without this Thread.kill will have to wait for queries to finish. No, not a pg bug. pg needs to account for the user hitting Ctrl-C and wanting to cancel a query (oh-no-I-started-DELETE-without-WHERE!). > 2. Is this a ruby bug? should there be a more sophisticated protocol > here? Should trap handlers inform the runtime that a ubf is not > needed? I don't know. Something like: trap(:QUIT, no_ubf: true) { ... } ? > something else ? Also see http://mid.gmane.org/20131120094717.GA17836@dcvr.yhbt.net Btw, given the master <-> worker separation in unicorn, we can also have the master talk to the worker through a pipe and avoid signals between the two. > Similar issue exists in mysql afaik. I don't think the mysql2 gem currently interrupts running queries. Not sure about the others. _______________________________________________ Unicorn mailing list - mongrel-unicorn@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-unicorn Do not quote signatures (like this one) or top post when replying