Re: [HACKERS] Which signal to use for CANCEL from postmaster to backend?
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Which signal to use for CANCEL from postmaster to backend? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 199807071727.NAA07698@candle.pha.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Which signal to use for CANCEL from postmaster to backend? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Which signal to use for CANCEL from postmaster to backend?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> Hmm. I find that SIGUSR1 and SIGUSR2 are both already in use for > communication between backends. We can't really commandeer SIGURG, > either, because it's apparently the same as SIGUSR1 on SCO > (see src/include/port/sco.h ... so OOB wouldn't work there anyway!). > > All three of SIGINT, SIGHUP, SIGTERM currently do the same thing in a > backend, so it looks like our best choice is to redefine one of those > as the cancel request signal. Any preference? > > regards, tom lane > > I like SIGQUIT. Looks to be unused. SIGINT is used too much from the command line, and SIGTERM used too much from scripts (the default kill arg.) -- Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 + If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w) + Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: