Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Should you not send the zero signal the same way
>> as other signals, and just let the recipient ignore it?
> Umm - my Linux manpage says that no signal is actually sent in these
> circumstances, just a check that we could send some other signal if we
> wanted to.
Sure, but all that we have to emulate is that there is no visible effect
on the target process. If it receives and throws away a zero signal,
we're good. (Especially since this isn't done often enough to be a
> So Dave's patch is clearly wrong where it returns EINVAL. How we should
> distinguish between the other two cases I am less sure of - IANAWP ;-)
I think we could just return ESRCH always if we have no pipe for the
process. The callers will actually treat these errnos the same anyway.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers-win32 by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-08-24 17:23:30|
|Subject: Re: REPOST: InitDB Failure on install |
|Previous:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2004-08-24 17:09:17|
|Subject: Re: postmaster.pid|