I wrote:
> Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> writes:
>> You might have gotten the following problem which was discussed before.
>> This problem was fixed in SIGQUIT signal handler of a backend, but ISTM
>> not that of an archiver.
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-admin/2009-11/msg00088.php
> pgarch.c's SIGQUIT handler just does exit(1), so it seems a bit unlikely
> that that solution would make a difference.
... but having said that, I see Peter's commit
d6de43099ac0bddb4b1da40088487616da892164 only touched postgres.c's
quickdie(), and not all the *other* background processes with identical
coding. That seems a clear oversight, so I will go fix it. Doesn't
explain why the archiver would get confused, though, since that file
doesn't have any code that tries to re-enable signals after entering the
signal handler.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
