Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> writes:
> You might have gotten the following problem which was discussed before.
> This problem was fixed in SIGQUIT signal handler of a backend, but ISTM
> not that of an archiver.
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-admin/2009-11/msg00088.php
pgarch.c's SIGQUIT handler just does exit(1), so it seems a bit unlikely
that that solution would make a difference. But we need to see a stack
trace to rule it out or not.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
