Re: We shouldn't signal process groups with SIGQUIT

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: We shouldn't signal process groups with SIGQUIT
Date: 2023-02-22 14:39:55
Message-ID: 41604.1677076795@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> What would be the advantage of doing that for groups other than
> -StartupPID and -PgArchPID? These are the two groups of processes we
> need to worry about, AFAIK.

No, we have the issue for regular backends too, since they could be
executing COPY FROM PROGRAM or the like (not to mention that functions
in plperlu, plpythonu, etc could spawn child processes).

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2023-02-22 14:41:12 Re: LWLock deadlock in brinRevmapDesummarizeRange
Previous Message Maxim Orlov 2023-02-22 14:29:29 Re: XID formatting and SLRU refactorings (was: Add 64-bit XIDs into PostgreSQL 15)