Andres Freund escribió: > On 2013-07-19 08:23:25 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > And I'd also propose getting rid > > of bgw_sighup and bgw_sigterm in both branches, while we're at it. > > AFAICT, they don't add any functionality, and they're basically > > unusable for dynamically started background workers. Probably better > > not to get people to used to using them. > > I don't have a problem with getting rid of those, it's easy enough to > register them inside the worker and it's safe since we start with > blocked signals. I seem to remember some discussion about why they were > added but I can't find a reference anymore. Alvaro, do you remember? I left them there because it was easy; but they were absolutely necessary only until we decided that we would start the worker's main function with signals blocked. I don't think there's any serious reason not to remove them now. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
