On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > This looks good to me in principle. A couple minor beefs: > > * The addition to CleanupProcSignalState could use a comment, > similar to the one you added in ProcKill.
OK. > * I think the code in ProcKill and AuxiliaryProcKill might be more > readable if the new local variable was named "myproc" (lower case). grep indicates that naming is less common that what I picked, so I chose to stick with what I picked. >> and we can easily add a NULL guard to the SetLatch() call in >> procsignal_sigusr1_handler, which the attached patch also does. > > Um ... no such change actually visible in patch, but it's clearly > necessary. Fixed. >> This might not be a complete fix to every problem of this type that >> exists anywhere in our code, but I think it's enough to make the world >> safe for procsignal_sigusr1_handler. > > Yeah; at the least this should cut down on the buildfarm noise we > are seeing ATM. > >> Assuming nobody objects too much to this basic approach, should I >> back-patch the parts of this that apply pre-9.4? > > Yes, I think so. We have seen some reports of irreproducible crashes > at process exit, and maybe this explains them. OK, done. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers