| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Fujii Masao <fujii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: stopgap fix for signal handling during restore_command |
| Date: | 2023-10-11 03:39:29 |
| Message-ID: | 20231011033929.j7doct7wzmyw6xiu@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-10-10 22:29:34 -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 09:54:18PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 04:40:28PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> I'd make these elog(PANIC), I think. The paths are not performance critical
> >> enough that a single branch hurts, so the overhead of the check is irrelevant,
> >> and the consequences of calling ProcKill() twice for the same process are very
> >> severe.
> >
> > Right. Should we write_stderr_signal_safe() and then abort() to keep these
> > paths async-signal-safe?
>
> Hm. I see that elog() is called elsewhere in proc_exit(), and it does not
> appear to be async-signal-safe. Am I missing something?
We shouldn't call proc_exit() in a signal handler. We perhaps have a few
remaining calls left, but we should (and I think in some cases are) working on
removing those.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2023-10-11 03:40:26 | Re: REL_15_STABLE: pgbench tests randomly failing on CI, Windows only |
| Previous Message | jinser | 2023-10-11 03:34:23 | Re: Fix typo in psql zh_CN.po |