On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 1:23 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> At Mon, 22 Jan 2024 13:29:10 -0800, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote
> in
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2024-01-19 12:28:05 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 03:42:28PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > > > Given that commit 728f86fec6 that introduced this issue was not strictly
> > > > required, perhaps we should just revert it for v16.
> > >
> > > Is there a point in keeping 728f86fec6 as well on HEAD? That does not
> > > strike me as wise to keep that in the tree for now. If it needs to be
> > > reworked, looking at this problem from scratch would be a safer
> > > approach.
> >
> > IDK, I think we'll introduce this type of bug over and over if we don't fix
> > it
> > properly.
>
> Just to clarify my position, I thought that 728f86fec6 was heading the
> right direction. Considering the current approach to signal handling
> in walreceiver, I believed that it would be better to further
> generalize in this direction rather than reverting. That's why I
> proposed that patch.
Regarding the patch, here are the review comments.
+/*
+ * Is current process a wal receiver?
+ */
+bool
+IsWalReceiver(void)
+{
+ return WalRcv != NULL;
+}
This looks wrong because WalRcv can be non-NULL in processes other
than walreceiver.
- pqsignal(SIGTERM, SignalHandlerForShutdownRequest); /* request shutdown */
+ pqsignal(SIGTERM, WalRcvShutdownSignalHandler); /* request shutdown */
Can't we just use die(), instead?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
