[HACKERS] removing set_latch_on_sigusr1

As part of the dynamic background worker mechanism, I introduced a flag set_latch_on_sigusr1. When set, a process sets its own latch any time it receives SIGUSR1. The original motivation for this was that the postmaster sends SIGUSR1 to a process to indicate the death of a background worker, but

Re: [HACKERS] removing set_latch_on_sigusr1

On October 8, 2015 5:41:37 PM GMT+02:00, Robert Haas wrote: >Patch attached. Objections? Suggestions? Comments? I've not reviewed the patch, but +1 for the plan. Andres --- Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone. -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] removing set_latch_on_sigusr1

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 2:41 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > As it happens, the TupleQueueFunnelNext function I recently committed > has such a hazard, which I failed to spot during review and testing. > If people don't like this, I can instead cause that function to set > the