Re: [HACKERS] Which signal to use for CANCEL from postmaster to backend?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
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:

Предыдущее
От: "Thomas G. Lockhart"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [BUGS] Small bug in union
Следующее
От: Bruce Momjian
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [BUGS] Small bug in union