| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> |
| 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 21:58:21 |
| Message-ID: | 10282.1090879101@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> writes:
> 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?
Possible, but then the *only* way to get the behavior is by using the
backend function --- you couldn't use dear old kill(1) to do it
manually. It'd be better if it mapped to a signal.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2004-07-26 22:16:42 | Re: win32 version info |
| Previous Message | Oliver Jowett | 2004-07-26 21:53:48 | Re: [HACKERS] Function to kill backend |