| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: kill -KILL: What happens? |
| Date: | 2011-01-13 19:36:10 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimTsw1GuHmX0vXs=joohU=LAKjKd=F8eO=H7Evn@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Frankly I'd prefer to get rid of PostmasterIsAlive, not extend its use.
> It sucks because you don't get a signal on parent death. With the
> arrival of the latch code, having to check for PostmasterIsAlive
> frequently is the only reason for an idle background process to consume
> CPU at all.
What we really need is SIGPARENT. I wonder if the Linux folks would
consider adding such a thing. Might be useful to others as well.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-01-13 19:43:00 | Re: Bug in pg_dump |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-13 19:21:44 | Re: kill -KILL: What happens? |