Re: more signals (was: Function to kill backend)

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: more signals (was: Function to kill backend)
Date: 2004-07-29 17:01:46
Message-ID: 200407291701.i6TH1kB14639@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> > ftok() on pg_control or something in the clusters data directory was my
> > intention. (Again, just one message queue)
>
> Doesn't work; you have to be able to cope with collisions with
> previously existing queue IDs ... so in practice the queue ID has to
> be treated as quasi-random. See the semaphore ID selection logic
> we use now.
>
> I tend to agree with Bruce's nearby comment that we shouldn't be trying
> to solve this now. I'd vote for commenting out the session-kill
> function for 7.5, and revisiting the issue sometime in future.

I already have it on the TODO list.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2004-07-29 17:03:02 Re: Point in Time Recovery
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-07-29 17:00:50 Re: more signals (was: Function to kill backend)