Re: Use SIGQUIT instead of SIGUSR1?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Use SIGQUIT instead of SIGUSR1?
Date: 2001-03-08 22:18:58
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.30.0103082317250.1061-100000@peter.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane writes:

> 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.

I think we agreed on this already when someone wanted to use a signal for
synchronizing "near-committers". Still seems like a good idea.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://yi.org/peter-e/

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Larry Rosenman 2001-03-08 22:25:06 Re: Performance monitor
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2001-03-08 22:06:13 Re: Performance monitor