Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 3:25 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> 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 ....
Hmm, so the postmaster could send SIGUSR1 without setting any particular pmsignal reason? Yeah, I suppose that could work. Or we could recast this as being a new pmsignal reason.
I'd be fine with either way.
I don't expect to be able to get to working on a concrete patch for this any time soon, so I'll be leaving it here unless someone else needs to pick it up for their extension work. The in-principle agreement is there for future work anyway.