Today kevin brintnall wrote: > > > this would make sense to me ... maybe have different behaviour > > > depending on the signal it gets ? > > > > That won't work in this case. You cannot catch SIGKILL. > > We could catch SIGTERM for expedited shutdown and SIGINT for full-flush > shutdown? Then, each operator can decide which makes the most sense.
that was the idea, exactly ... since normally when a system goes down (without K??xxx scripts) it will first send TERM (I think) to all processes that are still running and a bit later KILL. cheers tobi -- Tobi Oetiker, OETIKER+PARTNER AG, Aarweg 15 CH-4600 Olten, Switzerland http://it.oetiker.ch [EMAIL PROTECTED] ++41 62 775 9902 / sb: -9900 _______________________________________________ rrd-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/rrd-developers
