Signal Handing

[Matthew Buckett <ma...@it.ox.ac.uk>]

I was looking to see if it's possible to have CouchDB shutdown
gracefully in response to UNIX signals but it looks like this isn't
something that erlang natively supports:

http://erlang.2086793.n4.nabble.com/Signal-handling-TERM-INT-etc-td2107363.html

>From looking in the documentation I can see the standard way to
shutdown couchdb when it's running in the background is to use:

    couchdb -d

I'm running couchdb inside docker so was running couchdb in the
foreground (-i as well as ENV ERL_FLAGS=-noinput), this means that
`couchdb -d` doesn't work (it says it isn't running). However because
of running in interactive mode I can send the process a SIGSTOP and it
appears to exit gracefully (exit code 0).

Is this a sensible or acceptable thing todo and am I likely to hit
problems with it?

Thanks.

-- 
  Matthew Buckett, VLE Developer, IT Services, University of Oxford

Re: Signal Handing

[Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>]

Feel free to kill -9 couchdb if you want. There is no special "graceful"
shutdown for couchdb and it doesn't matter given our crash-only architecture.

If SIGSTOP makes you feel better, feel free to cargo cult that as a
solution. Makes no difference ;)

-Joan

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matthew Buckett" <ma...@it.ox.ac.uk>
> To: user@couchdb.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 8:11:56 AM
> Subject: Signal Handing
> 
> I was looking to see if it's possible to have CouchDB shutdown
> gracefully in response to UNIX signals but it looks like this isn't
> something that erlang natively supports:
> 
> http://erlang.2086793.n4.nabble.com/Signal-handling-TERM-INT-etc-td2107363.html
> 
> From looking in the documentation I can see the standard way to
> shutdown couchdb when it's running in the background is to use:
> 
>     couchdb -d
> 
> I'm running couchdb inside docker so was running couchdb in the
> foreground (-i as well as ENV ERL_FLAGS=-noinput), this means that
> `couchdb -d` doesn't work (it says it isn't running). However because
> of running in interactive mode I can send the process a SIGSTOP and
> it
> appears to exit gracefully (exit code 0).
> 
> Is this a sensible or acceptable thing todo and am I likely to hit
> problems with it?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> --
>   Matthew Buckett, VLE Developer, IT Services, University of Oxford
>