D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> On June 5, 2002 12:33 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> > > On May 13, 2002 12:50 am, Rajesh Kumar Mallah. wrote:
>
> Catching up on an old mailbox, Bruce? :-)
>
> > > Now if only I could get IBM to understand that. They still claim that my
> > > problem is that PostgreSQL (an "unsupported" application) is doing
> > > something to catch SIGKILL.
> >
> > First, an application can't catch SIGKILL. It never arrives to
> > applications. It is supposed to pull the process with no warning.
> >
> > However, there are things processes can do to wedge themselves in a
> > system call so they don't see the SIGKILL. Of course, as soon as they
> > return from the system call, they die.
>
> Exactly. What IBM was saying was was that we were "catching" SIGKILL and I
> could not convince the (supposedly technical) IBMers that they were talking
> out their ass.
Yes, they didn't know "catching" from "ignoring because in
uninterruptible system call".
> Anyway, I am pretty sure that PostgreSQL is not the culprit here. As it
> happens this project is back on the table for me so it is interesting that
> your email popped up now. I just compiled the latest version of PostgreSQL
> on my AIX system and it generated lots of errors and then completed and
> installed fine. Makes me sort of nervous. We'll see how it goes. Anyone
> have any horror/success stories about PostgreSQL on AIX for me?
Would you check those error/warnings and send us patches or a list of
them. Sometimes different compilers like AIX can show problems gcc
doesn't.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
