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

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Stephen Frost
Тема Re: SIGQUIT on archiver child processes maybe not such a hot idea?
Дата
Msg-id 20190903194842.GW16436@tamriel.snowman.net
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: SIGQUIT on archiver child processes maybe not such a hot idea?  (David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>)
Ответы Re: SIGQUIT on archiver child processes maybe not such a hot idea?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Greetings,

* David Steele (david@pgmasters.net) wrote:
> On 9/3/19 12:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> writes:
> >> But now we know that sending it to grand-children is wrong in a
> >> sense that that leads to left-alone unwanted core files. But the
> >> behavior is already knwon at the time.
> >
> >> So, Now I know that we need to revert that in certain extent if
> >> we want to stop the core-dumping behavior...
> >
> > Yeah.  After thinking about this more, I'm inclined to propose that
> > we just change what the postmaster does, as per attached patch.
> >
> > A couple of questions arise:
> >
> > * Would it be better to substitute SIGTERM instead of SIGINT?
> > The POSIX default handling is the same for both, but some programs
> > might interpret them differently.
>
> I prefer SIGTERM, but FWIW pgBackRest handles them both the same way.

Yeah, I wondered about that too, perhaps SIGTERM is better.  I'm not
really particular either way.

Thanks,

Stephen

Вложения

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Stephen Frost
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: SIGQUIT on archiver child processes maybe not such a hot idea?
Следующее
От: Stephen Frost
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Proposal: roll pg_stat_statements into core