|From:||Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>|
|To:||David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>|
|Cc:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com, michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: SIGQUIT on archiver child processes maybe not such a hot idea?|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
* David Steele (david(at)pgmasters(dot)net) wrote:
> On 9/3/19 12:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >> But now we know that sending it to grand-children is wrong in a
> >> sense that that leads to left-alone unwanted core files. But the
> >> behavior is already knwon at the time.
> >> So, Now I know that we need to revert that in certain extent if
> >> we want to stop the core-dumping behavior...
> > Yeah. After thinking about this more, I'm inclined to propose that
> > we just change what the postmaster does, as per attached patch.
> > A couple of questions arise:
> > * Would it be better to substitute SIGTERM instead of SIGINT?
> > The POSIX default handling is the same for both, but some programs
> > might interpret them differently.
> I prefer SIGTERM, but FWIW pgBackRest handles them both the same way.
Yeah, I wondered about that too, perhaps SIGTERM is better. I'm not
really particular either way.
|Next Message||Stephen Frost||2019-09-03 19:56:28||Re: Proposal: roll pg_stat_statements into core|
|Previous Message||Stephen Frost||2019-09-03 19:43:37||Re: SIGQUIT on archiver child processes maybe not such a hot idea?|