Re: [PATCH] ProcessInterrupts_hook

On Sat, 2 Oct 2021 at 01:24, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>
wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 01:32:26PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Hi Craig,
>
> There is still a CF entry for this. Should we close it as withdrawn? or
> maybe RwF?
>

I'm not going to get time for it now, so I think marking it withdrawn is
reasonable.

I think it's well worth doing and Tom seems to think it's not a crazy idea,
but I'm no longer working on the software that needed it, and don't see a
lot of other people calling for it, so it can wait until someone else needs
it.