Use SIGQUIT instead of SIGUSR1?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Use SIGQUIT instead of SIGUSR1? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 124.984085576@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: Use SIGQUIT instead of SIGUSR1?
Re: Use SIGQUIT instead of SIGUSR1? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
To implement the idea of performing a checkpoint after every so many XLOG megabytes (as well as after every so many seconds), I need to pick an additional signal number for the postmaster to accept. Seems like the most appropriate choice for this is SIGUSR1, which isn't currently being used at the postmaster level. However, if I just do that, then SIGUSR1 and SIGQUIT will have completely different meanings for the postmaster and for the backends, in fact SIGQUIT to the postmaster means send SIGUSR1 to the backends. This seems hopelessly confusing. I think it'd be a good idea to change the code so that SIGQUIT is the per-backend quickdie() signal, not SIGUSR1, to bring the postmaster and backend signals back into some semblance of agreement. For the moment we could leave the backends also accepting SIGUSR1 as quickdie, just in case someone out there is in the habit of sending that signal manually to individual backends. Eventually backend SIGUSR1 might be reassigned to mean something else. (I suspect Bruce is coveting it already ;-).) Any objections? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: