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

Re: more signals (was: Function to kill backend)

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: more signals (was: Function to kill backend)
Date: 2004-07-29 17:01:46
Message-ID: 200407291701.i6TH1kB14639@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> > ftok() on pg_control or something in the clusters data directory was my
> > intention. (Again, just one message queue)
> 
> Doesn't work; you have to be able to cope with collisions with
> previously existing queue IDs ... so in practice the queue ID has to
> be treated as quasi-random.  See the semaphore ID selection logic
> we use now.
> 
> I tend to agree with Bruce's nearby comment that we shouldn't be trying
> to solve this now.  I'd vote for commenting out the session-kill
> function for 7.5, and revisiting the issue sometime in future.

I already have it on the TODO list.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2004-07-29 17:03:02
Subject: Re: Point in Time Recovery
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-07-29 17:00:50
Subject: Re: more signals (was: Function to kill backend)

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