Re: SIGTERM/FATAL error

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SIGTERM/FATAL error
Date: 2001-03-12 01:10:26
Message-ID: 23452.984359426@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Also, what signal should people send to a backend to kill just that
> backend?

I don't know that we do or should recommend such a thing at all ...
but SIGTERM should work if anything does (and it is, not coincidentally,
the default kind of signal for kill(1)).

> In my reading of the code, I see:

> pqsignal(SIGTERM, die); /* cancel current query and exit */
> pqsignal(SIGQUIT, die); /* could reassign this sig for another use */

This is already obsolete ;=) ... I'm just waiting on Vadim's approval of
my xlog mods before committing a change in SIGQUIT handling --- see
discussion a couple days ago.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-03-12 01:11:59 Re: SIGTERM/FATAL error
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2001-03-12 01:08:43 Re: SIGTERM/FATAL error