Re: Use SIGQUIT instead of SIGUSR1?

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