Re: Network failure may prevent promotion

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 8:29 PM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 6:43 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> > There's an existing AmWalReceiverProcess() macro too. Let's use that.
>
> +1
>
> > Hmm, but doesn't bgworker_die() have that problem with exit(1)ing in the
> > signal handler?
>
> Yes, that's a problem. This issue was raised sometimes so far,
> but has not been resolved yet.
>
> > I also wonder if we should replace SignalHandlerForShutdownRequest()
> > completely with die(), in all processes? The difference is that
> > SignalHandlerForShutdownRequest() uses ShutdownRequestPending, while
> > die() uses ProcDiePending && InterruptPending to indicate that the
> > signal was received. Or do some of the processes want to check for
> > ShutdownRequestPending only at specific places, and don't want to get
> > terminated at the any random CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS()?
>
> For example, checkpointer seems to want to handle a shutdown request
> only when no other checkpoint is in progress because initiating a shutdown
> checkpoint while another checkpoint is running could lead to issues.

This my comment is not right... Sorry for noise.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao