Re: more signals (was: Function to kill backend)

Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On top of this, we create a SystemV message queue used to pass down
> extended signals (should be supported on all systems that support sysv
> shared mem, and we require that..). We'd use the PID of the receiving
> backend as the message type, and pass the signal number as message
> contents.

I think we already have enough IPC uglyness without adding message
queues. :-)

> To the user it would be exposed using "pg_ctl kill" (that we already
> have). Which can of course also send normal signals. So we'd say
> "*never* use kill -<antyhing> on a pg backend, always use 'pg_kill
> kill', oh, and never -9 anything".
>
>
> This is more or less how it's done on win32 today (only there we do it
> for all signals - and this can and shuold definitly not be used to
> change the behaviour of things like SIGTERM that you'd normally see
> happen in a unix environment, that would just be dangerous). The current
> win32 implementatino could just be extended to send a int32 instead of a
> byte across the IPC channel already established.
>
>
> Does this sound like a reasonable way to extend the available signals?
> Or is it adding unnecessary stuff?
> And finally, if this sounds like a decent idea, is it too big to slip in
> as a bugfix for the term_backend() stuff into 7.5?

At this point the big issue is terminating a backend session remotely.
Let's get 7.5 out and see who else asks for it because right now I am
not even sure who wants it.

--
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