On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 2:00 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > The point of the sigdelset is that if somewhere later on, we install > the BlockSig mask, then SIGQUIT will remain unblocked.
I mean, we're just repeating the same points here, but that's not what the comment says. > You asserted > upthread that noplace in these processes ever does so; maybe that's > true today, or maybe not, It's easily checked using 'git grep'. > but the intent of this code is that *once > we get through initialization* SIGQUIT will remain unblocked. I can't speak to the intent, but I can speak to what the comment says. > I'll concede that it's not 100% clear whether or not these processes > need to re-block SIGQUIT during error recovery. I think it's entirely clear that they do not, and I have explained my reasoning already. > I repeat, though, > that I'm disinclined to change that without some evidence that there's > actually a problem with the way it works now. I've also already explained why I don't agree with this perspective. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
