Re: [PATCHES] postmaster.pid

["Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us] 
> Sent: 26 August 2004 16:24
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Andrew Dunstan; Magnus Hagander; 
> pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org; PostgreSQL-patches
> Subject: Re: [PATCHES] [pgsql-hackers-win32] postmaster.pid 
> 
> "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?

None that I can think of. If we managed to open the pipe and get the
zero back, then we've proved the process is there and is postgres.

Regards Dave.