On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 3:25 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> writes: > > On 1/19/21 1:42 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > >> My suggestion, which I'm happy to post in patch form if you think it's > >> reasonable <snip> > > > Tom, Robert, and thoughts on the proposals in [1]? > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAGRY4nyNfscmQiZBCNT7cBYnQxJLAAVCGz%2BGZAQDAco1Fbb01w%40mail.gmail.com > > No objection to generalizing the state passed through pmsignal.c. > > I'm not very comfortable about the idea of having the postmaster set > child processes' latches ... that doesn't sound terribly safe from the > standpoint of not allowing the postmaster to mess with shared memory > state that could cause it to block or crash. If we already do that > elsewhere, then OK, but I don't think we do.
It should be unnecessary anyway. We changed it a while back to make any SIGUSR1 set the latch .... -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
