Re: Use standard SIGHUP and SIGTERM handlers in autoprewarm module
От | Fujii Masao |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Use standard SIGHUP and SIGTERM handlers in autoprewarm module |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1afcd216-fb87-c9b0-d97b-7bba856dcf91@oss.nttdata.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Use standard SIGHUP and SIGTERM handlers in autoprewarm module (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020/11/27 16:47, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: > On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 12:26 PM Fujii Masao > <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: >> >>> > > When I read the patch again, I found that, with the patch, the shutdown >>> > > of worker_spi causes to report the following FATAL message. >>> > > >>> > > FATAL: terminating connection due to administrator command >>> > > >>> > > Isn't this message confusing because it's not a connection? If so, >>> > > we need to update ProcessInterrupts() so that the proper message is >>> > > reported like other bgworkers do. >>> > > >>> > >>> > This is also true for all the bgworker that use the die() handler. How about doing it the way bgworker_die() doesin ProcessInterrupts()? This would give meaningful information. Thoughts? If okay, I can make a separate patch. >>> > >>> >>> Attaching the patch that improved the message for bg workers in ProcessInterrupts(). For instance, now it looks like*FATAL: terminating background worker "worker_spi" due to administrator command* or *FATAL: terminating backgroundworker "parallel worker" due to administrator command *and so on for other bg workers.* >>> * >>> >>> Please review the patch. >> >> Thanks for the patch! It looks good to me. >> > > Thanks! Pushed. Thanks! Since all the patches that proposed in this thread were committed, I marked the CF entry as committed. Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: