On 2013-10-24 13:13:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > The above patch ignores SIGSYS throughout initdb. We could narrow the > possible side-effects by only disabling SIGSYS around the shm_open call, > but I'm not sure there's any value in that. It seems likely to me that > the same kind of problem might pop up elsewhere in future, as we try > to make use of other modern kernel facilities. In fact, I can foresee > wanting to run the whole backend this way --- though I'm not proposing > doing so today.
Why not? I don't see the advantage of looking for effects/problems of such a chance twice. I'd also much rather see a wrongly configured postgres fail to start with a legible error message instead of it being killed by a signal. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
