| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 23:59:37 |
| Message-ID: | Y/asaaR8Qs6oA1aL@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 09:39:55AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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).
Indeed, right. I completely forgot about these cases.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-02-23 00:23:02 | Re: buildfarm + meson |
| Previous Message | Jim Jones | 2023-02-22 23:41:53 | Re: [PATCH] Add pretty-printed XML output option |