Re: Problem while setting the fpw with SIGHUP

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi, dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Problem while setting the fpw with SIGHUP
Date: 2018-09-18 06:39:37
Message-ID: 20180918063937.GM31460@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 01:06:09PM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> I was wrong here. It was handled in HandleStartupProcInterrupts
> called from StartupXLOG. So, it should be just removed from the
> set. Sorry for the bogus patch.

Thanks for confirming.

Still, it looks like a waste to abuse on SIGINT just to forcibly wake up
the checkpointer and request from it a checkpoint... And you could just
have used a new parameter for the checkpointer appended with
CHECKPOINT_FORCE. I think that my approach of just making the set of
events purely ordered will save from any kind of race conditions, while
I suspect that what you propose here does not close all the holes.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 2018-09-18 07:15:42 Re: Problem while setting the fpw with SIGHUP
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2018-09-18 06:34:57 Re: Problem while setting the fpw with SIGHUP