On Tue, 2009-12-29 at 11:13 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > On Tuesday 29 December 2009 16:22:54 Tom Lane wrote: > >> 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... > > In that case, HS has already broken it, and we need to fix it not make > it worse. > > My humble opinion is that SIGINT should not be overloaded with multiple > meanings. We already have a multiplexed signal mechanism, which is what > should be used for any additional signal reasons HS may need to > introduce.
It's a revelation to me, but yes, I see it now and agree. I'm looking at Fujii-san's multiplexing patch from Jul 31 to rewrite this code using that mechanism. It sounds like it's a neat fit and it should get around the bug report from Kris also if it all works. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
