| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Hot Standy introduced problem with query cancel behavior |
| Date: | 2009-12-29 15:22:54 |
| Message-ID: | 23413.1262100174@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de> writes:
> If we use the same signal for both cases, the receiving backend cannot
> tell what the intention of the sending backend was. That's why I
> proposed to make SIGINT similar to SIGUSR1 where we write a reason to
> a shared memory structure first and then send the signal (see
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-12/msg02067.php from
> a few days ago).
This seems like a fairly bad idea. One of the intended use-cases is to
be able to manually "kill -INT" a misbehaving backend. Assuming that
there will be valid info about the signal in shared memory will break
that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-29 15:24:38 | Re: [PATCH] Provide rowcount for utility SELECTs |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2009-12-29 15:17:08 | Re: parse tree to XML format |