Re: Behaviour of bgworker with SIGHUP

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Behaviour of bgworker with SIGHUP
Date: 2012-12-31 15:54:26
Message-ID: 20121231155426.GL4363@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-12-31 at 11:03 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> > I think this (have a config option, and have SIGHUP work as expected)
> > would be useful to demo in worker_spi, if you care to submit a patch.
>
> Yeah, I would love too. Reading the code of worker_spi, we could add one
> or three parameters: a naptime, and the schemaname for both bgprocess.
> One would be enough or do you prefer all three?

I got no problem with three.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Guillaume Lelarge 2012-12-31 16:05:21 Re: Behaviour of bgworker with SIGHUP
Previous Message Guillaume Lelarge 2012-12-31 15:48:58 Re: Behaviour of bgworker with SIGHUP