Re: We shouldn't signal process groups with SIGQUIT - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: We shouldn't signal process groups with SIGQUIT
Date
Msg-id Y/W6lm197oBiQEDM@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: We shouldn't signal process groups with SIGQUIT  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: We shouldn't signal process groups with SIGQUIT
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 12:47:12PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> Just naively hacking this behaviour change into the current code, would yield
> sending SIGQUIT to postgres, and then SIGTERM to the whole process
> group. Which seems like a reasonable order?  quickdie() should _exit()
> immediately in the signal handler, so we shouldn't get to processing the
> SIGTERM.  Even if both signals are "reacted to" at the same time, possibly
> with SIGTERM being processed first, the SIGQUIT handler should be executed
> long before the next CFI().

I can see the sense in this argument and this order should work, still
adding more complication for the backends does not sound that
appealing to me.

What would be the advantage of doing that for groups other than
-StartupPID and -PgArchPID?  These are the two groups of processes we
need to worry about, AFAIK.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Julien Rouhaud
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade and logical replication
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Commitfest Manager