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
