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

Re: Use SIGQUIT instead of SIGUSR1?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Use SIGQUIT instead of SIGUSR1?
Date: 2001-03-08 22:54:54
Message-ID: 2235.984092094@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
ncm(at)zembu(dot)com (Nathan Myers) writes:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 04:06:16PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think it'd be a good idea to change the code so that SIGQUIT is the
>> per-backend quickdie() signal, not SIGUSR1, to bring the postmaster and
>> backend signals back into some semblance of agreement.

> The number and variety of signals used in PG is already terrifying.

> Attaching a specific meaning to SIGQUIT may be dangerous if the OS and 
> its daemons also send SIGQUIT to mean something subtly different.

Quite true.  One additional reason for this change is to make SIGQUIT
do something a little closer to what one would expect, ie, force-quit
the backend, and in particular to ensure that SIGQUIT'ing the whole
postmaster-and-backends process group produces a reasonable result.

We've been gradually rationalizing the signal usage over the last few
releases, and this is another step in the process.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2001-03-08 23:13:10
Subject: Re: Depending on system install scripts (was Re: COBOL)
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2001-03-08 22:49:50
Subject: Internationalized error messages

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