Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > My guess is that this used to proc_exit the postgres backend, but now
> > proc_exits the postmaster, but that is only a guess.
> No.  This is post-fork (and had better remain so).  The change causes
> the sub-postmaster that has just finished handling a cancel request
> to exit with nonzero status, which the postmaster then interprets
> (correctly) as a child process crash.
> BTW, how are we going to do cancels in Windows-land?  The sub-postmaster
> isn't gonna have access to the postmaster's list of child PIDs and
> cancel keys ...

When you say sub-postmaster, you mean we fork, then process the cancel
request?  Seems we might need special handling in there, yea.

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  [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 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to