Re: Use standard SIGHUP and SIGTERM handlers in autoprewarm module

On 2020/10/06 1:18, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 8:04 PM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2020/10/05 19:45, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Autoprewarm module is using it's own SIGHUP(apw_sigterm_handler, got_sigterm) and SIGTERM(apw_sighup_handler, got_sighup) handlers which are similar to standard signal handlers(except for a difference [1]). Isn't it good to remove them and use standard SignalHandlerForConfigReload and SignalHandlerForShutdownRequest?
>>>
>>> Attaching the patch for the above changes.
>>>
>>> Looks like the commit[2] replaced custom handlers with standard handlers.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>> +1
>>
>> The patch looks good to me.
>>
>
> Thanks.
>
>>
>> ISTM that we can also replace StartupProcSigHupHandler() in startup.c
>> with SignalHandlerForConfigReload() by making the startup process use
>> the general shared latch instead of its own one. POC patch attached.
>> Thought?
>>
>
> I'm not quite sure whether it breaks something or not. I see that
> WakeupRecovery() with XLogCtl->recoveryWakeupLatch latch from the
> startup process is also being used in the walreceiver process. I may
> be wrong, but have some concern if the behaviour is different in case
> of EXEC_BACKEND and Windows?

Unless I'm wrong, regarding MyLatch, the behavior is not different
whether in EXEC_BACKEND or not. In both cases, SwitchToSharedLatch()
is called and MyLatch is set to the shared latch, i.e., MyProc->procLatch.

>
> Another concern is that we are always using
> XLogCtl->recoveryWakeupLatch in shared mode, this makes sense as this
> latch is also being used in walrecevier. But sometimes, MyLatch is
> created in non-shared mode as well(see InitLatch(MyLatch)).

Yes, and then the startup process calls SwitchToSharedLatch() and
repoint MyLatch to the shared one.

>
> Others may have better thoughts though.

Okay, I will reconsider the patch and post it separately later if necessary.

>
>>
>> Probably we can also replace sigHupHandler() in syslogger.c with
>> SignalHandlerForConfigReload()? This would be separate patch, though.
>>
>
> +1 to replace sigHupHandler() with SignalHandlerForConfigReload() as
> the latch and the functionality are pretty much the same.
>
> WalReceiverMai(): I think we can also replace WalRcvShutdownHandler()
> with SignalHandlerForShutdownRequest() because walrcv->latch point to
> &MyProc->procLatch which in turn point to MyLatch.
>
> Thoughts? If okay, we can combine these into a single patch. I will
> post an updated patch soon.

+1 Or it's also ok to make each patch separately.
Anyway, thanks!

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION