Re: Sure-fire "kill"

Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_exxesolutions.com> wrote in message news:<3F171E38.8F8A0FF9_at_exxesolutions.com>...
> Joel Garry wrote:
>
> > Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_exxesolutions.com> wrote in message news:<3F160621.9F171420_at_exxesolutions.com>...
> > >
> > > I have yet to see kill -9 not kill a process.
> >
> > I have. That is what a zombie is. But I wasn't talking about that.
> >
> > >
> > > Looking at v_$session is not a reliable indication of whether a session has been killed.
> >
> > Fair enough. What would be a reliable indication of whether a session
> > has been killed? Are you saying Oracle doesn't know?
> >
> > jg
> > --
> > @home.com is bogus.
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?q=zombie+author:Joel+author:Garry&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&newwindow=1&selm=1995Jul5.162913.20702%40rossinc.com&rnum=5
>
> And attempt to do anything new with the session after the kill should indicate, immediately, that the session has been killed. The fact that
> information related to the session remains in the v_$ views does not.

The idea is to get correct information without actually trying to connect to the session. A plus would be actually being able to manage Oracle sessions with OEM.

Why would you care about doing anything new with a killed session? More often, one cares about why the computer is still being impacted long after killing the session.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20030717-1855-leisure-bambi.html