"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

• Re: Can we simplify win32 threading code at 2005-06-01 08:57:26 from Magnus Hagander

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