On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 3:25 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> writes:
> > On 1/19/21 1:42 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> >> My suggestion, which I'm happy to post in patch form if you think it's
> >> reasonable <snip>
>
> > Tom, Robert, and thoughts on the proposals in [1]?
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAGRY4nyNfscmQiZBCNT7cBYnQxJLAAVCGz%2BGZAQDAco1Fbb01w%40mail.gmail.com
>
> No objection to generalizing the state passed through pmsignal.c.
>
> I'm not very comfortable about the idea of having the postmaster set
> child processes' latches ... that doesn't sound terribly safe from the
> standpoint of not allowing the postmaster to mess with shared memory
> state that could cause it to block or crash. If we already do that
> elsewhere, then OK, but I don't think we do.
It should be unnecessary anyway. We changed it a while back to make
any SIGUSR1 set the latch ....
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
