Re: [HACKERS] Which signal to use for CANCEL from postmaster to backend? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Which signal to use for CANCEL from postmaster to backend?
Date
Msg-id 199807071727.NAA07698@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Which signal to use for CANCEL from postmaster to backend?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Which signal to use for CANCEL from postmaster to backend?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
> Hmm.  I find that SIGUSR1 and SIGUSR2 are both already in use for
> communication between backends.  We can't really commandeer SIGURG,
> either, because it's apparently the same as SIGUSR1 on SCO
> (see src/include/port/sco.h ... so OOB wouldn't work there anyway!).
>
> All three of SIGINT, SIGHUP, SIGTERM currently do the same thing in a
> backend, so it looks like our best choice is to redefine one of those
> as the cancel request signal.  Any preference?
>
>             regards, tom lane
>
>

I like SIGQUIT.  Looks to be unused.  SIGINT is used too much from the
command line, and SIGTERM used too much from scripts (the default kill
arg.)


--
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Thomas G. Lockhart"
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUGS] Small bug in union
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUGS] Small bug in union