On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not convinced. I was thinking that we could simply treat it like > SIGQUIT, if it's available. I doubt there's a real use case for > continuing to run queries after the postmaster and all the background > processes are dead. Expedited death seems like much better behavior. > Even checking PostmasterIsAlive() once per query would be reasonable, > except that it'd add a system call to check for a condition that > almost never holds, which I'm not eager to do.
If postmaster has a few fds to spare, what about having it open a pipe to every child it spawns. It never has to read/write to it, but postmaster closing will signal the client's fd. The client just has to pop the fd into whatever nrmal poll/select event handlign it uses to notice when the "parent's pipe" is closed. A FIFO would allow postmaster to not need as many file handles, and clients reading the fifo would notice when the writer (postmaster) closes it. a. -- Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god, ai...@highrise.ca command like a king, http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers