Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Postgresql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
Date: 2003-12-16 20:20:53
Message-ID: 3FDF6925.4080800@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers-win32

Magnus Hagander wrote:

>
>Absolutely, but there are other signals to send, no? Or you might want
>to send a signal directly to a backend (to cancel for example), as you
>can do on Unix.
>
>
>

In normal operation the only thing that should be signalling a backend
is the postmaster.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message scott.marlowe 2003-12-16 21:16:21 Re: Resurrecting pg_upgrade
Previous Message Jon Jensen 2003-12-16 20:18:34 Re: [PATCHES] Double Backslash example patch

Browse pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2003-12-16 20:35:26 Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2003-12-16 20:20:49 Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch