| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-01-22 16:07:27 | Re: Bunch o' dead code in GEQO |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-01-22 15:40:36 | Re: cache control? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Claudio Natoli | 2004-01-22 22:57:53 | Re: What's left? |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2004-01-22 14:59:51 | What's left? |