| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Use standard SIGHUP and SIGTERM handlers in autoprewarm module |
| Date: | 2022-04-29 19:18:15 |
| Message-ID: | 20220429191815.xewxjlpmq7mxhsr2@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2020-12-16 18:12:39 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> - /* Wait to be signaled by UnpinBuffer() */
> + /*
> + * Wait to be signaled by UnpinBuffer().
> + *
> + * We assume that only UnpinBuffer() and the timeout requests established
> + * above can wake us up here. WakeupRecovery() called by walreceiver or
> + * SIGHUP signal handler, etc cannot do that because it uses the different
> + * latch from that ProcWaitForSignal() waits on.
> + */
> ProcWaitForSignal(PG_WAIT_BUFFER_PIN);
>
> /*
Isn't this comment bogus? The latch could e.g. be set by
procsignal_sigusr1_handler(), which the startup process uses. Or it could
already be set, when entering ResolveRecoveryConflictWithBufferPin().
Why is it even relevant that we only get woken up by UnpinBuffer()?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-04-29 19:31:50 | Re: fix cost subqueryscan wrong parallel cost |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2022-04-29 19:06:58 | Re: fix cost subqueryscan wrong parallel cost |