On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 8:29 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 6:43 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote: > > There's an existing AmWalReceiverProcess() macro too. Let's use that. > > +1 > > > Hmm, but doesn't bgworker_die() have that problem with exit(1)ing in the > > signal handler? > > Yes, that's a problem. This issue was raised sometimes so far, > but has not been resolved yet. > > > I also wonder if we should replace SignalHandlerForShutdownRequest() > > completely with die(), in all processes? The difference is that > > SignalHandlerForShutdownRequest() uses ShutdownRequestPending, while > > die() uses ProcDiePending && InterruptPending to indicate that the > > signal was received. Or do some of the processes want to check for > > ShutdownRequestPending only at specific places, and don't want to get > > terminated at the any random CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS()? > > For example, checkpointer seems to want to handle a shutdown request > only when no other checkpoint is in progress because initiating a shutdown > checkpoint while another checkpoint is running could lead to issues.
This my comment is not right... Sorry for noise. Regards, -- Fujii Masao
