On Tue, 2009-12-29 at 11:13 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On Tuesday 29 December 2009 16:22:54 Tom Lane wrote:
> >> This seems like a fairly bad idea. One of the intended use-cases is to
> >> be able to manually "kill -INT" a misbehaving backend. Assuming that
> >> there will be valid info about the signal in shared memory will break
> >> that.
> > Well. That already is the case now. MyProc->recoveryConflictMode is checked to
> > recognize what kind of conflict is being resolved...
> In that case, HS has already broken it, and we need to fix it not make
> it worse.
> My humble opinion is that SIGINT should not be overloaded with multiple
> meanings. We already have a multiplexed signal mechanism, which is what
> should be used for any additional signal reasons HS may need to
It's a revelation to me, but yes, I see it now and agree.
I'm looking at Fujii-san's multiplexing patch from Jul 31 to rewrite
this code using that mechanism. It sounds like it's a neat fit and it
should get around the bug report from Kris also if it all works.
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-12-30 00:29:24|
|Subject: Re: Stats for inheritance trees |
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2009-12-29 23:47:17|
|Subject: Re: Hot Standy introduced problem with query cancel