Re: Checkpoint process signal handling seems wrong

"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> writes:
>> However, while sitting here looking at it I can't help wondering whether
>> the checkpoint process shouldn't have responded to the SIGTERM that the
>> postmaster sent it when the other backend crashed.
>>
>> Is it really such a good idea for the checkpoint process to ignore
>> SIGTERM?

> Seems not, SIGTERM --> elog(STOP) should be Ok here.

Yes, after further thought this seems not only desirable but
*necessary*. Else the checkpoint maker might be writing bad data
from corrupted shmem structures, which is exactly what the system-wide
restart mechanism is supposed to prevent.

I'll fix the checkpoint process to accept SIGTERM and SIGUSR1 (but
not SIGINT) from the postmaster.

>> While we're at it: is it really such a good idea to use elog(STOP)
>> all over the place in the WAL stuff? If XLogFileInit had chosen

> I just hadn't time to consider each particular case.

Okay. You're right, that probably needs case-by-case thought that
we haven't time for right now.

regards, tom lane