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

Re: [HACKERS] Which signal to use for CANCEL from postmaster to backend?

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane)
Cc: hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Which signal to use for CANCEL from postmaster to backend?
Date: 1998-07-07 17:27:12
Message-ID: 199807071727.NAA07698@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> Hmm.  I find that SIGUSR1 and SIGUSR2 are both already in use for
> communication between backends.  We can't really commandeer SIGURG,
> either, because it's apparently the same as SIGUSR1 on SCO
> (see src/include/port/sco.h ... so OOB wouldn't work there anyway!).
> 
> All three of SIGINT, SIGHUP, SIGTERM currently do the same thing in a
> backend, so it looks like our best choice is to redefine one of those
> as the cancel request signal.  Any preference?
> 
> 			regards, tom lane
> 
> 

I like SIGQUIT.  Looks to be unused.  SIGINT is used too much from the
command line, and SIGTERM used too much from scripts (the default kill
arg.)


-- 
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Stuart RisonDate: 1998-07-07 18:12:45
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] translate "bug"?
Previous:From: Thomas G. LockhartDate: 1998-07-07 15:15:39
Subject: Re: [BUGS] Small bug in union

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