On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 09:18:06PM +0100, Florian Pflug wrote:
> On Jan13, 2011, at 21:01 , Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I'm not convinced. I was thinking that we could simply treat it
> >> like SIGQUIT, if it's available. I doubt there's a real use case
> >> for continuing to run queries after the postmaster and all the
> >> background processes are dead. Expedited death seems like much
> >> better behavior. Even checking PostmasterIsAlive() once per
> >> query would be reasonable, except that it'd add a system call to
> >> check for a condition that almost never holds, which I'm not
> >> eager to do.
> >
> > If postmaster has a few fds to spare, what about having it open a
> > pipe to every child it spawns. It never has to read/write to it,
> > but postmaster closing will signal the client's fd. The client
> > just has to pop the fd into whatever nrmal poll/select event
> > handlign it uses to notice when the "parent's pipe" is closed.
>
> I just started to experiment with that idea, and wrote a small test
> program to check if that'd work. I'll post the results when I'm
> done.
Great! :)
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
