Re: Proposal for Signal Detection Refactoring

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposal for Signal Detection Refactoring
Date: 2018-09-24 23:57:25
Message-ID: 20180924235725.GA1354@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 10:06:40AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> This doesn't seem to solve an actual problem, why are we discussing
> changing this? What'd be measurably improved, worth the cost of making
> backpatching more painful?

My point was just to reduce the number of variables used and ease
debugger lookups with what is on the stack.

Anyway, putting the back-patching pain aside, and just for my own
knowledge... Andres, would it be fine to just use one sig_atomic_t
field which can be set from different code paths? Say:
typedef enum SignalPendingType {
PENDING_INTERRUPT,
PENDING_CANCEL_QUERY,
PENDING_PROC_DIE,
PENDING_RELOAD,
PENDING_SESSION_TIMEOUT
};
extern volatile sig_atomic_t signalPendingFlags;

And then within separate signal handlers things like:
void
StatementCancelHandler(SIGNAL_ARGS)
{
[...]
signalPendingFlags |= PENDING_INTERRUPT | PENDING_CANCEL_QUERY;
[...]
}

void
PostgresSigHupHandler(SIGNAL_ARGS)
{
[...]
signalPendingFlags |= ConfigReloadPending;
[...]
}
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2018-09-25 00:23:56 Re: Proposal for Signal Detection Refactoring
Previous Message Bradley DeJong 2018-09-24 23:21:10 Re[2]: Adding a note to protocol.sgml regarding CopyData