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