Noah Misch wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 02:34:39PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:

> > I don't directly see any limitation with the use of kill on Windows..
> >
> > But indeed using directly pg_ctl kill seems like a better fit for the
> > PG infrastructure.
> From, "Using signals under this port
> should currently be considered unsupported."  Windows applications cannot
> handle SIGQUIT:  The
> PostgreSQL backend does not generate or expect Windows signals; see its
> signal.c emulation facility.

Makes sense.  What we're doing now is what you suggested, so we should
be fine.

> > > Postmaster log file names became less informative.  Before the commit:
> > > Should nodes get a name, so we instead see master_57834.log?
> > 
> > I am not sure that this is necessary.
> In general, you'd need to cross-reference the main log file to determine which
> postmaster log corresponds to which action within the test.  I did plenty of
> "grep $PATTERN src/bin/pg_rewind/tmp_check/log/master.log" while debugging
> that test.  I'd like to be able to use /*master*.log, not rely on timestamps
> or on scraping regress_log_002_databases to determine which logs are master
> logs.  Feel free to skip this point if I'm the only one minding, though.

Since we now have the node name in the log file name, perhaps we no
longer need the port number in there.  In fact, I find having the file
name change on every run (based on the port number) is slightly
annoying.  I vote we change it back to using the node name without the
port number.  (Also, some PostgresNode messages refer to the instance by
datadir and port number, which is unnecessary: it would be clearer to
use the name instead.)

Álvaro Herrera      
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to