| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel worker hangs while handling errors. |
| Date: | 2020-09-03 21:29:35 |
| Message-ID: | 792142.1599168575@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> As for the question of SIGQUIT handling, I see that postgres.c
> does "PG_SETMASK(&BlockSig)" immediately after applying the sigdelset
> change, so there probably isn't any harm in having the background
> processes do likewise.
Concretely, something about like this (I just did the bgwriter, but
we'd want the same in all the background processes). I tried to
respond to Robert's complaint about the inaccurate comment just above
sigsetjmp, too.
This passes check-world, for what little that's worth.
regards, tom lane
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| clean-up-background-SIGQUIT-handling-wip.patch | text/x-diff | 1.5 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-09-03 21:31:31 | Re: report expected contrecord size |
| Previous Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2020-09-03 21:28:49 | Re: Maximum password length |