Greetings, * Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote: > * Kyotaro Horiguchi (horikyota....@gmail.com) wrote: > > The commit 8e19a82640 changed SIGQUIT handler of almost all processes > > not to run atexit callbacks for safety. Archiver process should behave > > the same way for the same reason. Exit status changes 1 to 2 but that > > doesn't make any behavioral change. > > Shouldn't this: > > a) be back-patched, as the other change was > b) also include a change to have the stats collector (which I realize is > removed later on in this patch set, but we're talking about fixing > existing things..) for the same reason, and because there isn't much > point in trying to write out the stats after we get a SIGQUIT, since > we're just going to blow them away again since we're going to go > through crash recovery..?
* Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote: > 0001 is just a piece of refactoring, so I see no strong argument in > favor of a backpatch, IMHO. No, 0001 changes the SIGQUIT handler for the archiver process, which is what 8e19a82640 was about changing for a bunch of the other subprocesses and which was back-patched all the way, so I'm a bit confused about why you're saying it's just refactoring..? Note that exit() and _exit() aren't the same, and the latter is what's now being used in SignalHandlerForCrashExit. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
