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

Re: Hot Standy introduced problem with query cancel behavior

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Hot Standy introduced problem with query cancel behavior
Date: 2009-12-29 15:22:54
Message-ID: 23413.1262100174@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de> writes:
> If we use the same signal for both cases, the receiving backend cannot
> tell what the intention of the sending backend was. That's why I
> proposed to make SIGINT similar to SIGUSR1 where we write a reason to
> a shared memory structure first and then send the signal (see
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-12/msg02067.php from
> a few days ago).

This seems like a fairly bad idea.  One of the intended use-cases is to
be able to manually "kill -INT" a misbehaving backend.  Assuming that
there will be valid info about the signal in shared memory will break
that.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-12-29 15:24:38
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Provide rowcount for utility SELECTs
Previous:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2009-12-29 15:17:08
Subject: Re: parse tree to XML format

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