| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, Barry Lind <blind(at)xythos(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org, Max Dunn <mdunn(at)xythos(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: postmaster.pid |
| Date: | 2004-08-24 17:17:26 |
| Message-ID: | 5278.1093367846@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers-win32 |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Should you not send the zero signal the same way
>> as other signals, and just let the recipient ignore it?
> Umm - my Linux manpage says that no signal is actually sent in these
> circumstances, just a check that we could send some other signal if we
> wanted to.
Sure, but all that we have to emulate is that there is no visible effect
on the target process. If it receives and throws away a zero signal,
we're good. (Especially since this isn't done often enough to be a
performance issue.)
> So Dave's patch is clearly wrong where it returns EINVAL. How we should
> distinguish between the other two cases I am less sure of - IANAWP ;-)
I think we could just return ESRCH always if we have no pipe for the
process. The callers will actually treat these errnos the same anyway.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-08-24 17:23:30 | Re: REPOST: InitDB Failure on install |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-08-24 17:09:17 | Re: postmaster.pid |