On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 09:18:06PM +0100, Florian Pflug wrote: > 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.
Great! :) Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers