Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: [PATCHES] postmaster.pid
- From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
- To: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
- Cc: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org, "PostgreSQL-patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
- Subject: Re: [PATCHES] postmaster.pid
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 11:23:39 -0400
- Message-id: <17906(dot)1093533819(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
"Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> writes: >> ISTM we should not ever queue any event for signal 0. > That was my original intention, however Magnus thought it best just to > let it be queued and subsequently ignored by the backend - thinking > about it 15 minutes later I can't for the life of me think why that's > any better... Are there any error cases that we would miss detecting if it didn't go that far? regards, tom lane
- References:
- Re: [PATCHES] postmaster.pid
- From: Dave Page
- Re: [PATCHES] postmaster.pid
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCHES] postmaster.pid
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCHES] postmaster.pid
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCHES] postmaster.pid
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCHES] postmaster.pid
- Indexes: