Re: SIGQUIT on archiver child processes maybe not such a hot idea?

Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> But now we know that sending it to grand-children is wrong in a
> sense that that leads to left-alone unwanted core files. But the
> behavior is already knwon at the time.

> So, Now I know that we need to revert that in certain extent if
> we want to stop the core-dumping behavior...

Yeah. After thinking about this more, I'm inclined to propose that
we just change what the postmaster does, as per attached patch.

A couple of questions arise:

* Would it be better to substitute SIGTERM instead of SIGINT?
The POSIX default handling is the same for both, but some programs
might interpret them differently.

* With this patch, our own processes would see SIGQUIT then
SIGINT (or SIGTERM). Would any of them misbehave? I think not
(and this patch does pass check-world) but it might be a good
idea to double-check.

regards, tom lane