On Tuesday 29 December 2009 16:22:54 Tom Lane wrote: > Joachim Wieland <j...@mcknight.de> writes: > > If we use the same signal for both cases, the receiving backend cannot > > tell what the intention of the sending backend was. That's why I > > proposed to make SIGINT similar to SIGUSR1 where we write a reason to > > a shared memory structure first and then send the signal (see > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-12/msg02067.php from > > a few days ago). > This seems like a fairly bad idea. One of the intended use-cases is to > be able to manually "kill -INT" a misbehaving backend. Assuming that > there will be valid info about the signal in shared memory will break > that. Well. That already is the case now. MyProc->recoveryConflictMode is checked to recognize what kind of conflict is being resolved...
Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
