Hello, At Mon, 21 Nov 2016 21:39:07 -0500, Robert Haas <[email protected]> wrote in <ca+tgmozh6m5btmtzzm1vbpfghmengese4urj3-owknu56sk...@mail.gmail.com> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Craig Ringer <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm still interested in hearing comments from experienced folks about > > whether it's sane to do this at all, rather than have similar > > duplicate signal handling for the walsender. > > Well, I mean, if it's reasonable to share code in a given situation, > that is generally better than NOT sharing code...
Walsender handles SIGUSR1 completely different way from normal backends. The procsignal_sigusr1_handler is designed to work as the peer of SendProcSignal (not ProcSendSignal:). Walsender is just using a latch to be woken up. It has nothing to do with SendProcSignal. IMHO, I don't think walsender is allowed to just share the backends' handler for a practical reason that pss_signalFlags can harm. If you need to expand the function of SIGUSR1 of walsender, more thought would be needed. regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
