On fre, 2012-04-27 at 18:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > It seems we need another signal for the new mode, and the obvious > > candidate is SIGUSR2. But what shall the mapping look like? > > > [Choice #1] SIGUSR2 -> slow, SIGTERM -> smart, SIGINT -> fast, SIGQUIT > > -> immediate > > [Choice #2] SIGTERM -> slow, SIGUSR2 -> smart, SIGINT -> fast, SIGQUIT > > -> immediate > > SIGTERM needs to correspond to a fairly aggressive shutdown mode, > since (at least on some systems) init will send that during the system > shutdown sequence, shortly before escalating to SIGKILL.
That only happens if the postgresql init script itself didn't do a good job. We already have this setup currently, and it doesn't seem to cause a great deal of problems. > If we were willing to consider wholesale breakage of any scripts that > send these signals directly, I'd almost consider that it should be > SIGUSR2, SIGINT, SIGTERM, SIGQUIT. But that might be more churn than > we want. Keeping SIGTERM attached to the default/"smart" shutdown mode > seems like a reasonable compromise. I don't think we should change the traditional "severity" order of signals. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
