Re: pgsql: Use SIGURG rather than SIGUSR1 for latches.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Thomas Munro <tmunro(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-committers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Use SIGURG rather than SIGUSR1 for latches.
Date: 2021-04-15 02:26:13
Message-ID: 3739816.1618453573@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers

Thomas Munro <tmunro(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> Use SIGURG rather than SIGUSR1 for latches.

I notice that postmaster.c still does

#ifdef SIGURG
pqsignal_pm(SIGURG, SIG_IGN); /* ignored */
#endif

It appears to me that this should now read

pqsignal_pm(SIGURG, dummy_handler); /* unused, reserve for children */

for the reasons explained in the comment for dummy_handler.

It's possible that that argument doesn't apply to the way SIGURG is used
in this patch, but I don't see a good reason to ignore the convention of
setting up the handler this way.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2021-04-15 06:58:34 pgsql: amcheck: Use correct format placeholder for TOAST chunk numbers
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2021-04-15 01:10:07 pgsql: Tweak behavior of pg_dump --extension with configuration tables