On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 6:43 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote: > There's an existing AmWalReceiverProcess() macro too. Let's use that.
+1 > Hmm, but doesn't bgworker_die() have that problem with exit(1)ing in the > signal handler? Yes, that's a problem. This issue was raised sometimes so far, but has not been resolved yet. > I also wonder if we should replace SignalHandlerForShutdownRequest() > completely with die(), in all processes? The difference is that > SignalHandlerForShutdownRequest() uses ShutdownRequestPending, while > die() uses ProcDiePending && InterruptPending to indicate that the > signal was received. Or do some of the processes want to check for > ShutdownRequestPending only at specific places, and don't want to get > terminated at the any random CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS()? For example, checkpointer seems to want to handle a shutdown request only when no other checkpoint is in progress because initiating a shutdown checkpoint while another checkpoint is running could lead to issues. Also I just wonder if even walreceiver can exit safely at any random CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS()... Regards, -- Fujii Masao
