Rod Taylor wrote: > On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 15:23, Tom Lane wrote: > > Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > So I would vote for Yes on SIGINT by XID, but No on SIGTERM by PID, if Tom > > > thinks there will be any significant support & troubleshooting involved for > > > the latter. > > > > So like I say, I'm hesitant to buy into supporting this without a fairly > > convincing argument that it's really needed. > > It doesn't necessarily have to be a SIGTERM. The goal is to get rid of > unwanted idlers (connections). Could SIGINT be extended with a command > telling the daemon to shutdown or rollback the transaction as requested?
Nope, a signal is just a signal with no other info passed. We could add it, but it would be more code. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
