Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Singnals code (not just win32 specific)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>,pgsql-hackers-win32 <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>,PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Singnals code (not just win32 specific)
Date: 2004-01-22 15:53:33
Message-ID: 12376.1074786813@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-hackers-win32
Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> While talking about it, I think our usage of signals is way overloaded 
> anyway. Any ideas how to replace it all with just one signal and a 
> regular message queue?

Fooling with the definitions of SIGTERM, SIGINT, SIGQUIT would be a
really bad idea, since we have to behave reasonably when those signals
are sent to us by code not under our control.  Unix system shutdown
pretty much forces our SIGTERM behavior, for example.

Everything else pretty much already is funneled through SIGUSR1 and
SIGUSR2.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-01-22 16:07:27
Subject: Re: Bunch o' dead code in GEQO
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-01-22 15:40:36
Subject: Re: cache control?

pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Claudio NatoliDate: 2004-01-22 22:57:53
Subject: Re: What's left?
Previous:From: Merlin MoncureDate: 2004-01-22 14:59:51
Subject: What's left?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group