Hi, On 2020-03-27 14:59:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2020-03-27 14:34:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > >>> Tom, while imo not a fix of the right magnitude here: Are you planning / > >>> hoping to work again on your postmaster latch patch? > > >> Um ... -ESWAPPEDOUT. What are you thinking of? > > > https://postgr.es/m/18193.1492793404%40sss.pgh.pa.us > > Oh, I thought we'd dropped that line of thinking in favor of trying > to not do work in the postmaster signal handlers (i.e. I thought *you* > were pushing this forward, not me).
Hm - the way I imagine that to work is that we'd do a SetLatch() in the various signal handlers and that the main loop would then react to got_sigchld type variables. But for that we'd need latch support in postmaster - which I think is pretty exactly what your patch in the above message does? Of course there'd need to be several subsequent patches to move work out of signal handlers into the main loop. Were you thinking of somehow doing that without using a latch? Greetings, Andres Freund
