On 2020/11/10 21:30, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 3:04 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The main reason for having SetLatch() in
>>>> SignalHandlerForConfigReload() is to wake up the calling process if
>>>> waiting in WaitLatchOrSocket() or WaitLatch() and reload the new
>>>> config file and use the reloaded config variables. Maybe we should
>>>> give a thought on the scenarios in which the walreceiver process
>>>> waits, and what happens in case the latch is set when SIGHUP is
>>>> received.
>>>
>>> The difference is whether the config file is processed at the next
>>> wakeup (by force-reply-request or SIGTERM) of walreceiver or
>>> immediately. If server-reload happened frequently, say, several times
>>> per second(?), we should consider to reduce the useless reloading, but
>>> actually that's not the case.
>>
>> So, attached is the patch that makes walreceiver use both standard
>> SIGTERM and SIGHUP handlers. Currently I've not found any actual
>> issues by making walreceiver use standard SIGHUP handler, yet.
>>
>
> I think it makes sense to replace WalRcv->latch with
> MyProc->procLatch(as they point to the same latch) in the functions
> that are called in the walreceiver process. However, we are using
> walrcv->latch with spinlock, say in WalRcvForceReply() and
> RequestXLogStreaming() both are called from the startup process. See
> commit 45f9d08684, that made the access to the walreceiver's
> latch(WalRcv->latch) by the other process(startup) spinlock protected
>
> And looks like, in general it's a standard practice to set latch to
> wake up the process if waiting in case a SIGHUP signal is received and
> reload the relevant config variables.
>
> Going by the above analysis, the v3 patch looks good to me.
Thanks for the analysis! I pushed the patch.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
