On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 12:09 AM, Laurent Bercot < [email protected]> wrote:
> So what I'd like to do is have "s6-svc -d" result in the process receiving >> SIGINT and SIGCONT to the supervised process, rather than SIGTERM and >> SIGCONT. >> > > The problem with custom control is [...] A bad script could make s6-supervise unresponsive and > useless. I thought it was too much of a risk for the benefit it brings. > (Hunh, I tried sending this almost a week ago and it bounced. Strange.) I concur. And it's not particularly important, as far as that goes -- as you pointed out, using -Oic is arguably the right thing to do, because it's more transparent about what is going on. The only reason I prefer "-d" is that it's more symmetric with other managed services, and if the database needs to be bounced in a hurry it's likely because of a crisis, and I hate to increase the cognitive load on the operator who's trying to deal with the hypothetical future crisis. On the other hand, I can write a *really simple* control script that just takes sysvinit-style "start," "stop", "reload" etc arguments and runs the appropriate s6-svc command. Or, alternatively: But there's a way to trap and convert signals in your run script itself: > http://skarnet.org/software/execline/trap.html I had totally missed the trap command! That provides a nice workaround. Thank you! I'll try modifying the run script to use this approach and see whether the result makes me happier than the control-script approach. Cheers, Brett -- Brett Neumeier ([email protected])
