On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 01:32:26PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 at 03:46, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 3:25 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > >> 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 .... > > > > Hmm, so the postmaster could send SIGUSR1 without setting any particular > > pmsignal reason? Yeah, I suppose that could work. Or we could recast > > this as being a new pmsignal reason. > > > > I'd be fine with either way. > > I don't expect to be able to get to working on a concrete patch for this > any time soon, so I'll be leaving it here unless someone else needs to pick > it up for their extension work. The in-principle agreement is there for > future work anyway.
Hi Craig,
There is still a CF entry for this. Should we close it as withdrawn? or maybe RwF?
I'm not going to get time for it now, so I think marking it withdrawn is reasonable.
I think it's well worth doing and Tom seems to think it's not a crazy idea, but I'm no longer working on the software that needed it, and don't see a lot of other people calling for it, so it can wait until someone else needs it.
