Re: [HACKERS] Function to kill backend

Tom Lane wrote:
> Oliver Jowett  writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> So what you'd basically need is a separate signal to trigger that sort
> >> of exit, which would be easy ... if we had any spare signal numbers.
> 
> > What about multiplexing it onto an existing signal? e.g. set a 
> > shared-mem flag saying "exit after cancel" then send SIGINT?
> 
> Possible, but then the *only* way to get the behavior is by using the
> backend function --- you couldn't use dear old kill(1) to do it
> manually.  It'd be better if it mapped to a signal.

And what happens if a FATAL comes while it is procesing a signal meant
for termination?  It wouldn't exit fast enough --- bad.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073