From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
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: | 2020-09-11 20:23:21 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYZFx_wGEk_h426YBdGf81DCGuNd4ikSE6v60JaCbswuw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 4:20 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> It's not clear to me whether we want to institute the "accepting SIGQUIT
> is always okay" rule in processes that didn't already have code to change
> BlockSig. The relevant processes are pgarch.c, startup.c, bgworker.c,
> autovacuum.c (launcher and workers both), and walsender.c. In the first
> two of these I doubt it matters, because I don't think they'll ever block
> signals again anyway -- they certainly don't have outer sigsetjmp blocks.
> And I'm a bit hesitant to mess with bgworker given that we seem to expect
> that to be heavily used by extension code, and we're exposing code to
> allow extensions to mess with the signal blocking state. On the other
> hand, as long as SIGQUIT is pointing at SignalHandlerForCrashExit, it's
> hard to see a reason why holding it off could be necessary. So maybe
> having a uniform rule would be good.
>
> Any thoughts about that?
I think a backend process that isn't timely handling SIGQUIT is by
that very fact buggy. "pg_ctl stop -mi" isn't a friendly suggestion.
So I favor trying to make it uniform.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2020-09-11 20:28:49 | Re: ALTER TABLE .. DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-09-11 20:20:37 | Re: Parallel worker hangs while handling errors. |