Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)


From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>,Barry Lind <blind(at)xythos(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org,Max Dunn <mdunn(at)xythos(dot)com>
Subject: Re:
Date: 2004-08-24 17:17:26
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Should you not send the zero signal the same way
>> as other signals, and just let the recipient ignore it?

> Umm - my Linux manpage says that no signal is actually sent in these 
> circumstances, just a check that we could send some other signal if we 
> wanted to.

Sure, but all that we have to emulate is that there is no visible effect
on the target process.  If it receives and throws away a zero signal,
we're good.  (Especially since this isn't done often enough to be a
performance issue.)

> So Dave's patch is clearly wrong where it returns EINVAL. How we should 
> distinguish between the other two cases I am less sure of - IANAWP ;-)

I think we could just return ESRCH always if we have no pipe for the
process.  The callers will actually treat these errnos the same anyway.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-08-24 17:23:30
Subject: Re: REPOST: InitDB Failure on install
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2004-08-24 17:09:17
Subject: Re:

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group