RE: SIGQUIT on archiver child processes maybe not such a hot idea?

From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> SIGTERM, which needs to be adjusted.  For another, its
> SIGQUIT handler does exit(1) not _exit(2), which seems rather
> dubious ... should we make it more like the rest?  I think
> the reasoning there might've been that if some DBA decides to
> SIGQUIT the archiver, we don't need to force a database-wide
> reset; but why exactly should we tolerate that?

postmaster doesn't distinguish return codes other than 0 for the archiver, and just starts the archiver unless postmaster is shutting down.  So we can use _exit(2) like the other children.

Can't we use SIGKILL instead of SIGINT/SIGTERM to stop the grandchildren, just in case they are slow to respond to or ignore SIGINT/SIGTERM?  That matches the idea of pg_ctl's immediate shutdown.

(Windows cannot stop grandchildren because kill() in src/port/kill.c doesn't support the process group...  That's a separate topic.)


Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa