Re: Use standard SIGHUP and SIGTERM handlers in autoprewarm module

On 2020/11/05 12:12, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Wed, 4 Nov 2020 21:16:29 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 2:36 PM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Regarding other two patches, I think that it's better to use MyLatch
>>> rather than MyProc->procLatch or walrcv->latch in WaitLatch() and
>>> ResetLatch(), like other code does. Attached are the updated versions
>>> of the patches. Thought?
>>>
>>
>> +1 for replacing MyProc->procLatch with MyLatch in the autoprewarm
>> module, and the patch looks good to me.
>
> Looks good to me, too.

Thanks for the review! I pushed the patch.

>
>> I'm not quite sure to replace all the places in the walreceiver
>> process, for instance in WalRcvForceReply() we are using spinlock to
>> acquire the latch pointer and . Others may have better thoughts on
>> this.
>
> The SIGTERM part looks good. The only difference between
> WalRcvSigHupHandler and SignalHandlerForConfigReload is whether latch
> is set or not. I don't think it's a problem that config-reload causes
> an extra wakeup. Couldn't we do the same thing for SIGHUP?

I agree that we can use even standard SIGHUP handler in walreceiver.
I'm not sure why SetLatch() was not called in walreceiver's SIGHUP
handler so far.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION