Re: common signal handler protection - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nathan Bossart
Subject Re: common signal handler protection
Date
Msg-id 20240207023941.GA67817@nathanxps13
Whole thread Raw
In response to common signal handler protection  (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: common signal handler protection
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 03:20:08PM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> * Overhead: The wrapper handler calls a function pointer and getpid(),
>   which AFAICT is a real system call on most platforms.  That might not be
>   a tremendous amount of overhead, but it's not zero, either.  I'm
>   particularly worried about signal-heavy code like synchronous
>   replication.  (Are there other areas that should be tested?)  If this is
>   a concern, perhaps we could allow certain processes to opt out of this
>   wrapper handler, provided we believe it is unlikely to fork or that the
>   handler code is safe to run in grandchild processes.

I finally spent some time trying to measure this overhead.  Specifically, I
sent many, many SIGUSR2 signals to postmaster, which just uses
dummy_handler(), i.e., does nothing.  I was just barely able to get
wrapper_handler() to show up in the first page of 'perf top' in this
extreme case, which leads me to think that the overhead might not be a
problem.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Yugo NAGATA
Date:
Subject: Re: pgbnech: allow to cancel queries during benchmark
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: common signal handler protection