Re: [PATCHES] postmaster.pid

Shouldn't be necessary. We can do it, but it makes no real difference
:-) It just ends up queued, but since there is no signal #0, it will
never get dispatched.

But it certainly wouldn't break things to do it either :-)

//Magnus

> Should we (if only for the sake of completeness) make the
> converse one-byte change in port/win32/signal.c?
>
> It says:
>
> void
> pg_queue_signal(int signum)
> {
> if (signum >= PG_SIGNAL_COUNT || signum < 0)
> return;
> ...
>
> ISTM we should not ever queue any event for signal 0.
>
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
>
> Dave Page wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Magnus Hagander [mailto:mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net]
> >>Sent: 25 August 2004 14:59
> >>To: Tom Lane
> >>Cc: Dave Page; pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org
> >>Subject: RE: [pgsql-hackers-win32] postmaster.pid
> >>
> >>Ok, if you say so :-) I had the general impression we
> wanted that. But
> >>then let's go with the
> >>send-signal-0-down-the-pipe-and-ignore-it-in-the-backend. :-)
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Here's the massive 1 byte change required to do just that :-)
> >
> >Regards, Dave.
> >
> >
> >===================================================================
> >RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql-server/src/port/kill.c,v
> >retrieving revision 1.2
> >diff -u -r1.2 kill.c
> >--- kill.c 24 Jun 2004 18:53:48 -0000 1.2
> >+++ kill.c 26 Aug 2004 14:07:49 -0000
> >@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@
> > BYTE sigRet = 0;
> > DWORD bytes;
> >
> >- if (sig >= PG_SIGNAL_COUNT || sig <= 0)
> >+ if (sig >= PG_SIGNAL_COUNT || sig < 0)
> > {
> > errno = EINVAL;
> > return -1;
> >
> >---------------------------(end of
> >broadcast)---------------------------
> >TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to
> >majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> >
> >
> >
>
>