[HACKERS] Use SIGQUIT instead of SIGUSR1?

2001-03-08 Thread Tom Lane
To implement the idea of performing a checkpoint after every so many XLOG megabytes (as well as after every so many seconds), I need to pick an additional signal number for the postmaster to accept. Seems like the most appropriate choice for this is SIGUSR1, which isn't currently being used at

Re: [HACKERS] Use SIGQUIT instead of SIGUSR1?

2001-03-08 Thread Nathan Myers
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 04:06:16PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: To implement the idea of performing a checkpoint after every so many XLOG megabytes (as well as after every so many seconds), I need to pick an additional signal number for the postmaster to accept. Seems like the most appropriate

Re: [HACKERS] Use SIGQUIT instead of SIGUSR1?

2001-03-08 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Tom Lane writes: I think it'd be a good idea to change the code so that SIGQUIT is the per-backend quickdie() signal, not SIGUSR1, to bring the postmaster and backend signals back into some semblance of agreement. I think we agreed on this already when someone wanted to use a signal for