> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Seems like overkill to me. We could have the postmaster use SIGQUIT for
> > db shutdown and leave SIGKILL for admin shutdown of individual backends.
>
> Wrong... at least not with the current definitions of those signals!
I see you just changed th
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Seems like overkill to me. We could have the postmaster use SIGQUIT for
> db shutdown and leave SIGKILL for admin shutdown of individual backends.
Wrong... at least not with the current definitions of those signals!
regards, to
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The connection was terminated.
> > And make the postmaster print out
> > The system is shutting down.
> > before it sends out the SIGTERM's.
>
> Unfortunately the postmaster is in no position to send any message to
> the individual client
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The connection was terminated.
> And make the postmaster print out
> The system is shutting down.
> before it sends out the SIGTERM's.
Unfortunately the postmaster is in no position to send any message to
the individual clients.
Maybe we
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Can somone improve the wording?
>
> The system is shutting down.
>
> when the backend receives a SIGTERM. Seems we need some wording that
> can apply to db shutdown and individual backend termination by
> administrators.
The connection was terminated.
And
