Re: stray SIGALRM

Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2013-06-15 10:45:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> On reflection though, we *do* need to make them cope, because even
>> without lazy SIGALRM disable, any such place is still at risk.  We
>> surely must allow for the possibility of SIGHUP arriving at any instant,
>> for example.

> All signal handlers we register, including SIGHUP, but the one for
> SIGALRM set SA_RESTART... I wonder if we can rejigger things so we don't
> need that? I am not sure if there's still a reason for that decision
> inside the backend.

Hmm.  Personally I'd rather go in the other direction:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/12819.1183306286@sss.pgh.pa.us
but maybe the path of least resistance is to set SA_RESTART for SIGALRM
too.  Given our current usage of it, there seems no worse harm in
allowing kernel calls to restart after a SIGALRM than any other signal.
        regards, tom lane