"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Why not just use the pid in teh name, and have one segment per backend?
Being used only for signals you mean? That might work. I dislike fooling around with the contents of postmaster.pid, as that will inject platform-specific code into places where there is none now. If that's what the patch ends up requiring, I for one will vote to leave things as they are now. >> (2) Postmaster will startup a thread monitoring messages, >> pg_ctl simulate "kill" by sending postmaster a message >> <target_pid, signum>, then postmaster will forward this >> "signum" to "target_pid"; > I don't like that. If the postmaster dies, how will you signal the > remaining backends? Agreed, this seems pretty fragile ... and one thing you want from signal processing is robustness. It needs to be possible to signal a given process without any support from any other. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings