"Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> writes:
> Why not just use the pid in teh name, and have one segment per backend?
Being used only for signals you mean? That might work.
I dislike fooling around with the contents of postmaster.pid, as that
will inject platform-specific code into places where there is none now.
If that's what the patch ends up requiring, I for one will vote to leave
things as they are now.
>> (2) Postmaster will startup a thread monitoring messages,
>> pg_ctl simulate "kill" by sending postmaster a message
>> <target_pid, signum>, then postmaster will forward this
>> "signum" to "target_pid";
> I don't like that. If the postmaster dies, how will you signal the
> remaining backends?
Agreed, this seems pretty fragile ... and one thing you want from signal
processing is robustness. It needs to be possible to signal a given
process without any support from any other.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-06-01 14:38:24|
|Subject: Re: ODBC |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-06-01 14:31:07|
|Subject: Re: Interval->day proposal |