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

Re: [HACKERS] Function to kill backend

From: Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>,Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>,Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>,Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>,PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Function to kill backend
Date: 2004-07-26 21:53:48
Message-ID: 41057D6C.4010707@opencloud.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:

> So what you'd basically need is a separate signal to trigger that sort
> of exit, which would be easy ... if we had any spare signal numbers.

What about multiplexing it onto an existing signal? e.g. set a 
shared-mem flag saying "exit after cancel" then send SIGINT?

I guess this is getting away from the original patch though..

-O

In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-07-26 21:58:21
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Function to kill backend
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-07-26 21:36:36
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Function to kill backend

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