Re: [PATCH] ProcessInterrupts_hook

On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 at 03:46, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 3:25 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> I'm not very comfortable about the idea of having the postmaster set
> >> child processes' latches ... that doesn't sound terribly safe from the
> >> standpoint of not allowing the postmaster to mess with shared memory
> >> state that could cause it to block or crash. If we already do that
> >> elsewhere, then OK, but I don't think we do.
>
> > It should be unnecessary anyway. We changed it a while back to make
> > any SIGUSR1 set the latch ....
>
> Hmm, so the postmaster could send SIGUSR1 without setting any particular
> pmsignal reason? Yeah, I suppose that could work. Or we could recast
> this as being a new pmsignal reason.
>

I'd be fine with either way.

I don't expect to be able to get to working on a concrete patch for this
any time soon, so I'll be leaving it here unless someone else needs to pick
it up for their extension work. The in-principle agreement is there for
future work anyway.