On 2020/11/13 20:24, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 10:06 AM Fujii Masao
> <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the analysis! I pushed the patch.
>>
>
> Thanks! Since we are replacing custom SIGHUP and SIGTERM handlers with
> standard ones, how about doing the same thing in worker_spi.c? I
> posted a patch previously [1] in this mail thread. If it makes sense,
> please review it.
I agree to simplify the worker_spi code by making it use the standard
signal handlers. But as far as I read Craig Ringer's comments upthread
about worker_spi, it's not enough to just replace the dedicated SIGTERM
handler with the standard one. ISTM that probably worker_spi should
use the signal handler handling InterruptPending and ProcDiePending
like die() does. What do you think about Craig Ringer's comments?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
