| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Onder Kalaci <onder(at)citusdata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Optional message to user when terminating/cancelling backend |
| Date: | 2018-10-02 00:39:59 |
| Message-ID: | 20181002003959.GR11712@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 02:37:42PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 1 Oct 2018, at 01:19, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>> Looking at the refactoring patch 0001, wouldn't signalfuncs.c make a
>> better name for the new file? There are already multiple examples of
>> this type, like logicalfuncs.c, slotfuncs.c, etc.
>
> I have no strong feelings on this, I was merely using the name that Alvaro
> suggested when he brought up the refactoring as an extension of this patch.
> signalfuncs.c is fine by me, so I did this rename in the attached revision.
Indeed, I missed the previous part posted here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180124154548.gmpyvkzlsijren7u@alvherre.pgsql
Alvaro, do you have a strong preference over one or the other?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-10-02 00:46:39 | Re: snprintf.c hammering memset() |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-10-02 00:19:16 | Re: snprintf.c hammering memset() |