On Jan13, 2011, at 21:01 , Aidan Van Dyk wrote: > 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.
I just started to experiment with that idea, and wrote a small test program to check if that'd work. I'll post the results when I'm done. best regards, Florian Pflug -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
