SIGQUIT vs SIGINT - Mailing list pgsql-admin

From Edwin Grubbs
Subject SIGQUIT vs SIGINT
Date
Msg-id CAAZm=o1sSz7yvGVoigPOALcJ44f6vC7EqNnE+Ygn9jA-CnF2PA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: SIGQUIT vs SIGINT  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-admin
Redhat cluster comes with a default configuration file for
postgres-8.4 that by default just sends a SIGQUIT to stop postgres.
I'm trying to convince Redhat support to use SIGINT instead of
SIGQUIT, so that postgres doesn't have to recover by replaying the WAL
file, but they are questioning whether recovery is actually a bad
thing.

I can't find any more information on why not to use SIGQUIT besides
the documentation indicating  "This is recommended only in
emergencies." Can you provide any information on why their default
config should be changed? I can obviously edit my own server's config,
but I don't want anyone else to be hurt by this.

Here is the bug that I submitted. The comments that I have received
back are on the support ticket, so you can't see that.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871659

-Edwin


pgsql-admin by date:

Previous
From: Lukasz Brodziak
Date:
Subject: Re: Cannot take base backup of a master database
Next
From: Igor Neyman
Date:
Subject: unlooged tables