[ADMIN] Killing Processes

2005-04-23 Thread Thomas F . O'Connell
It is generally not recommended that you kill processes with anything stronger than HUP, which is (I believe) what kill sends by default. Stronger signals will cause all backends to kill themselves because of paranoia about data corruption. If the process does not respond to that, then there

Re: [ADMIN] Killing Processes

2005-04-23 Thread Michael Fuhr
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 10:58:46AM -0500, Thomas F.O'Connell wrote: It is generally not recommended that you kill processes with anything stronger than HUP, which is (I believe) what kill sends by default. kill usually sends TERM by default, not HUP. (I say usually only because I haven't

Re: [ADMIN] Killing Processes

2005-04-23 Thread Thomas F.O'Connell
Oops. That's right. I was relying on memory, which is less reliable than man. Fortunately, I always consult man before killing... :P -tfo -- Thomas F. O'Connell Co-Founder, Information Architect Sitening, LLC Strategic Open Source: Open Your i http://www.sitening.com/ 110 30th Avenue North,

Re: [ADMIN] Killing Processes

2005-04-23 Thread Christopher Browne
In the last exciting episode, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Fuhr) wrote: On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 10:58:46AM -0500, Thomas F.O'Connell wrote: It is generally not recommended that you kill processes with anything stronger than HUP, which is (I believe) what kill sends by default. kill usually

Re: [ADMIN] Killing Processes

2005-04-23 Thread Michael Fuhr
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 02:00:11PM -0400, Christopher Browne wrote: In the last exciting episode, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Fuhr) wrote: kill usually sends TERM by default, not HUP. (I say usually only because I haven't personally examined every implementation of kill in existence.