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: <001201c0d9a6$5327f520$048a42d8@hpcustomer> From: "Tim Baker" To: References: <20010510112639.A26981@enteract.com> <20010510123102.B15024@redhat.com> <20010510123628.A48047@enteract.com> <20010510140721.F12136@redhat.com> <20010510155340.A25542@enteract.com> <20010510175304.A19397@redhat.com> Subject: Re: SIGTERM does not stop backend postgres processes immediately Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:09:53 -0700 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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 From: "Christopher Faylor" > >It is hard to see how Cygwin could emulate this in the general case if > >closing the socket is the only way to unblock recv(win32). But what's > >the harm in allowing signals to be handled while in recv(cygwin) even > >if recv(win32) remains blocked? > > Wow. There is really a communication breakdown here. I keep telling > you that it is not possible to do what you want and you keep acting like > I'm making policy decisions which, if only I would relent, would solve > your problems. He's not "receiving" your meaning. Me bad. -- Tim Baker -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple