Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane writes:
>
> > I think this is fairly irrelevant, because a not-yet-backend should
> > have a fairly short timeout (a few seconds) before just shutting
> > down anyway, so that malfunctioning clients can't cause denial of
> > service; the particular case you mention is just one scenario.
>
> I have a note here about an authentication timeout on the order of a few
> minutes. You never know what sort of things PAM or Kerberos can go
> through behind the scenes.
>
> > OTOH, it'd be easy enough to turn on SIGTERM/SIGQUIT too, if you
> > think there's really any value in it.
>
> I think that would be reasonable.
OK, I'll go ahead and enable these two during authentication with a special signal handler that simply does
exit(0). The postmaster expects all it's children to suicide anytime soon more or less bloody depending on if he
send'sTERM or QUIT. But at least, they have to terminate without waiting for the client or otherwise
infinitely.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
