Re: [PATCH] ProcessInterrupts_hook
| От | Craig Ringer |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [PATCH] ProcessInterrupts_hook |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAGRY4nxLAC2TekXmoWJgXXWTXdGDQtLx6OPuq3f4jTZ-YkwZqA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] ProcessInterrupts_hook (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [PATCH] ProcessInterrupts_hook
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 at 03:46, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 3:25 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I'm not very comfortable about the idea of having the postmaster set
>> child processes' latches ... that doesn't sound terribly safe from the
>> standpoint of not allowing the postmaster to mess with shared memory
>> state that could cause it to block or crash. If we already do that
>> elsewhere, then OK, but I don't think we do.
> It should be unnecessary anyway. We changed it a while back to make
> any SIGUSR1 set the latch ....
Hmm, so the postmaster could send SIGUSR1 without setting any particular
pmsignal reason? Yeah, I suppose that could work. Or we could recast
this as being a new pmsignal reason.
I'd be fine with either way.
I don't expect to be able to get to working on a concrete patch for this any time soon, so I'll be leaving it here unless someone else needs to pick it up for their extension work. The in-principle agreement is there for future work anyway.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: