Rod Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 15:23, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> > > So I would vote for Yes on SIGINT by XID, but No on SIGTERM by PID, if Tom
> > > thinks there will be any significant support & troubleshooting involved for
> > > the latter.
> >
> > So like I say, I'm hesitant to buy into supporting this without a fairly
> > convincing argument that it's really needed.
>
> It doesn't necessarily have to be a SIGTERM. The goal is to get rid of
> unwanted idlers (connections). Could SIGINT be extended with a command
> telling the daemon to shutdown or rollback the transaction as requested?
Nope, a signal is just a signal with no other info passed. We could add
it, but it would be more code.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
