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.
With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
