| From: | Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Avoid multiple SetLatch() calls in procsignal_sigusr1_handler() |
| Date: | 2023-03-01 09:44:36 |
| Message-ID: | CAGz5QCLd8wm_KxZW=W+=roHnv+yS8pvw2qLP=G=FxDH53aee_g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 9:01 PM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Most of the multiplexed SIGUSR1 handlers are setting latch explicitly
> when the procsignal_sigusr1_handler() can do that for them at the end.
> These multiplexed handlers are currently being used as SIGUSR1
> handlers, not as independent handlers, so no problem if SetLatch() is
> removed from them. A few others do it right by saying /* latch will be
> set by procsignal_sigusr1_handler */. Although, calling SetLatch() in
> quick succession does no harm (it just returns if the latch was
> previously set), it seems unnecessary.
>
+1
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais | 2023-03-01 09:46:12 | Re: Memory leak from ExecutorState context? |
| Previous Message | Jim Jones | 2023-03-01 09:41:35 | Re: Proposal: %T Prompt parameter for psql for current time (like Oracle has) |