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

Reply via email to