X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C3F4D1B266 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 2004 20:51:59 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 37247-05 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 2004 23:51:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.174]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 364C6D1B1A1 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 2004 20:51:54 -0300 (ADT) Received: from modem-2479.panther.dialup.pol.co.uk ([217.135.249.175] helo=[192.168.0.100]) by cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1BlG14-00038J-7f; Fri, 16 Jul 2004 00:51:54 +0100 Subject: Re: Point in Time Recovery From: Simon Riggs To: Alvaro Herrera Cc: HISADAMasaki , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <20040715230133.GB8005@dcc.uchile.cl> References: <200407132242.i6DMgg612564@candle.pha.pa.us> <1089760416.17493.3327.camel@stromboli> <20040715210816.E8A3.HISADA.MASAKI@lab.ntt.co.jp> <1089931442.17493.6749.camel@stromboli> <20040715230133.GB8005@dcc.uchile.cl> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: 2nd Quadrant Message-Id: <1089935513.17493.6923.camel@stromboli> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-7) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 00:51:53 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_SORBS X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200407/837 X-Sequence-Number: 56398 On Fri, 2004-07-16 at 00:01, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:44:02PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 13:16, HISADAMasaki wrote: > > > > -- line 236 --- > > > - pgsignal(SIGCHLD, SIG_IGN); > > > > > > -- line 236 --- > > > + pgsignal(SIGCHLD, SIG_DFL); > > > > I'm not sure I understand why its returned -1, though I'll take you > > recommendation. I've not witnessed such an issue. What system are you > > running, or is it a default shell issue? > > > > Do people think that the change is appropriate for all systems, or just > > the one you're using? > > My manpage for signal(2) says that you shouldn't assign SIG_IGN to > SIGCHLD, according to POSIX. It goes on to say that BSD and SysV > behaviors differ on this aspect. > POSIX rules OK! So - I should be setting this to SIG_DFL and thats good for everyone? OK. Will do. Best regards, Simon Riggs