Hi Michael, Simon,
From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Michael Paquier
> > Oh, I see. But how does the startup process respond quickly? It seems
> that you need to call HandleStartupProcInterrupts() instead of
> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(). But I'm not sure whether
> HandleStartupProcInterrupts() can be called here.
>
> Bah. Of course you are right. We don't care about SetLatch() here as signals
> are processed with a different code path than normal backends.
So, I understood you agreed that CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() here does nothing. But
your patch still calls it:
+ /* An interrupt may have occurred while waiting */
+ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
I got confused because the problem is not defined in this thread. What problem
does this patch address? These ones?
* The startup process terminates as soon as postmaster dies.
* pg_stat_activity does not show the wait event of startup process waiting for
a recovery conflict resolution.
My guess about why you decided to not call HandleStartupProcInterrupts() here
is:
* Respond to postmaster death here.
* No need to reload config file here because there's no parameter to affect
this conflict wait. But max_standby_{archive | streaming}_delay seems to
affect the wait period.
* No need to handle SIGTERM and exit here, because the startup process doesn't
wait for a conflict resolution here when he can terminate.
I think you can call HandleStartupProcInterrupts() here, instead of checking
postmaster death. Did you perform tests?
Did Simon's committed patch solve the problem as expected?
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
