Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sources.redhat.com Message-ID: <00c101c0d9a6$44a44a30$0200a8c0@lifelesswks> From: "Robert Collins" To: Cc: References: <20010510112639.A26981@enteract.com> <20010510123102.B15024@redhat.com> <20010510123628.A48047@enteract.com> <20010510140721.F12136@redhat.com> Subject: Re: SIGTERM does not stop backend postgres processes immediately Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 09:09:28 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 May 2001 23:03:23.0100 (UTC) FILETIME=[699B71C0:01C0D9A5] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Faylor" To: Cc: Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 4:07 AM Subject: Re: SIGTERM does not stop backend postgres processes immediately > > I'll bet the the Open Group would imply that a signal does not close > a socket if you are blocked in a recv() call, too. > > I don't know why you are getting the impression that I'm passing down > an edict. I'm always open to methods for getting Cygwin to work > more like UNIX. I don't see how closing the socket can achieve this > goal, even if you could make it work. Blueskying a concept here: what about cygwin opening all sockets in non-blocking mode, and if the app thinks that it is a blocking call wait on the socket && on a signal event? Obviously not trivial to get working right, but a) would it work on 95? b) thoughts? Rob > cgf > > -- > Want to unsubscribe from this list? > Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple > > -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple