Re: global / super barriers (for checksums) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: global / super barriers (for checksums)
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoaY9Uf2h-PHh8tFLR=FJMO7A4RLwao-m6ye965dQoNuPA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: global / super barriers (for checksums)  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:26 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On the other hand, 0002 seems like it's pretty clearly a good idea. It
> makes a whole bunch of auxiliary processes use
> procsignal_sigusr1_handler() and those things all get called from
> AuxiliaryProcessMain(), which does ProcSignalInit(), and it seems like
> clearly the right idea that processes which register to participate in
> the procsignal mechanism should also register to get notified if they
> receive a procsignal. I think that the reason we haven't bothered with
> this up until now is because I think that it's presently impossible
> for any of the kind of procsignals that we have to get sent to any of
> those processes. But, global barriers would require us to do so, so it
> seems like it's time to tighten that up, and it doesn't really cost
> anything. So I propose to commit this part soon, unless somebody
> objects.

Done.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: Allow superuser to grant passwordless connection rights on postgres_fdw
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: benchmarking Flex practices