From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Archiver not exiting upon crash |
Date: | 2012-05-21 17:14:22 |
Message-ID: | 29717.1337620462@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> ... but having said that, I see Peter's commit
> d6de43099ac0bddb4b1da40088487616da892164 only touched postgres.c's
> quickdie(), and not all the *other* background processes with identical
> coding. That seems a clear oversight, so I will go fix it. Doesn't
> explain why the archiver would get confused, though, since that file
> doesn't have any code that tries to re-enable signals after entering the
> signal handler.
... wait, scratch that. AFAICS, that commit was totally useless,
because BlockSig should always already contain SIGQUIT. I don't think
there's a need to propagate the same useless code elsewhere.
In the case of pgarch.c, there might be some reason to add
PG_SETMASK(&BlockSig) to its SIGQUIT handler, just to be sure that
*other* signals are blocked before we go into the exit(1) code.
I'm still having a hard time believing that that's Jeff's issue, though.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2012-05-21 17:30:59 | Re: Why is indexonlyscan so darned slow? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-21 16:58:21 | Re: External Open Standards |