Tom Lane wrote:
> > I've attached a patch that works for me. I hope I got it right.
>
> Applied with additional cleanup. You hadn't thought very carefully
> about additional state transitions that would have to be introduced
> into the postmaster state machine to support a new state --- for
> example, as coded a SIGINT delivered to the postmaster after SIGTERM
> would fail to do anything at all, when of course it really ought to
> force us into fast shutdown. Also, it's not really that hard to
> disallow non-superusers from connecting in PM_WAIT_BACKUP state.
Thank you for helping.
You know, this is my first patch for server code. I know that I
still have a lot to learn until I grok how all that works
together.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
