On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 11:40:36PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why not, after calling fork() create a new process group with setsid() and
> > then instead of killing the recovery thread, kill the whole process group
> > (-
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 10:49:39PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > However, it seems the signal wasn't sent at all.
>
> Now that I think about it, the behavior of system() is predicated on the
> assumption that SIGINT and S
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 09:39:39PM -0500, Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Stephen Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [...variable setup...]
> > while [ ! -f $wanted_file ]
> > do
> > if [ -f $abort_file ]
> > then
> >
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 05:03:44PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Doing a shutdown "immediate" isn't to clever because it actually leaves
> > the recovery threads running
>
> > LOG: restored log file &q
