From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>, Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Function to kill backend |
Date: | 2004-07-27 02:08:09 |
Message-ID: | 200407270208.i6R289q28342@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> So what you'd basically need is a separate signal to trigger that sort
> >> of exit, which would be easy ... if we had any spare signal numbers.
>
> > What about multiplexing it onto an existing signal? e.g. set a
> > shared-mem flag saying "exit after cancel" then send SIGINT?
>
> Possible, but then the *only* way to get the behavior is by using the
> backend function --- you couldn't use dear old kill(1) to do it
> manually. It'd be better if it mapped to a signal.
And what happens if a FATAL comes while it is procesing a signal meant
for termination? It wouldn't exit fast enough --- bad.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2004-07-27 02:41:53 | [subxacts] Some docs |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2004-07-26 22:16:42 | Re: win32 version info |