Re: Use SIGQUIT instead of SIGUSR1? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Use SIGQUIT instead of SIGUSR1?
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.30.0103082317250.1061-100000@peter.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to Use SIGQUIT instead of SIGUSR1?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane writes:

> I think it'd be a good idea to change the code so that SIGQUIT is the
> per-backend quickdie() signal, not SIGUSR1, to bring the postmaster and
> backend signals back into some semblance of agreement.

I think we agreed on this already when someone wanted to use a signal for
synchronizing "near-committers".  Still seems like a good idea.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Larry Rosenman
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance monitor
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Internationalized error messages