Re: Shouldn't GSSAPI and SSL code use FeBeWaitSet?

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 4:55 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 4:49 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > While working on a patch to reuse a common WaitEventSet for latch
> > waits, I noticed that be-secure-gssapi.c and be-secure-openssl.c don't
> > use FeBeWaitSet. They probably should, for consistency with
> > be-secure.c, because that surely holds the socket they want, no?
>
> Hmm. Perhaps it's like that because they're ignoring their latch
> (though they pass it in just because that interface requires it). So
> then why not reset it and process read interrupts, like be-secure.c?

Perhaps the theory is that it doesn't matter if they ignore eg
SIGQUIT, because authentication_timeout will come along in (say) 60
seconds and exit anyway? That makes me wonder whether it's OK that
StartupPacketTimeoutHandler() does proc_exit() from a signal handler.