On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 16:36 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There's a comment that looks related to this issue in syncrep.c. It reads:
> >
> > /*
> > * We don't receive SIGHUPs at this point, so resetting
> > * synchronous_standby_names has no effect on waiters.
> > */
> >
> > It's unclear to me what this actually means. Is there some reason we
> > CAN'T receive SIGHUPs at that point, or have we just chosen not to
> > (for unexplained reasons)?
>
> Not sure. Simon?
>
> It seems harmless to receive SIGHUP at that point.
You pointed out this out to me, so if you want I can explain back to you
again ;-) Signals are blocked over that section of code.
We could write a scary bit of code to get around that, but it smells
badly of kludge.
What do you think we should do?
-- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
