Re: Use standard SIGHUP and SIGTERM handlers in autoprewarm module
От | Fujii Masao |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Use standard SIGHUP and SIGTERM handlers in autoprewarm module |
Дата | |
Msg-id | d8c0c608-021b-3c73-fffd-3240829ee986@oss.nttdata.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Use standard SIGHUP and SIGTERM handlers in autoprewarm module (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Use standard SIGHUP and SIGTERM handlers in autoprewarm module
(Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020/11/04 18:06, Fujii Masao wrote: > > > On 2020/10/29 15:21, Fujii Masao wrote: >> >> >> On 2020/10/07 11:30, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 11:41 AM Bharath Rupireddy >>> <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 11:20 AM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> +1 Or it's also ok to make each patch separately. >>>>> Anyway, thanks! >>>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks. +1 to have separate patches. I will post two separate patches >>>> for autoprewarm and WalRcvShutdownHandler for further review. The >>>> other two patches can be for startup.c and syslogger.c. >>>> >>> >>> I'm attaching all the 4 patches here together. >>> >>> 1. v1-use-standard-SIGHUP-and-SIGTERM-handlers-in-autoprewarm-process.patch >>> -- This is the patch initially sent in this mail by me, I just >>> renamed it. >>> 2. v1-use-MyLatch-and-standard-SIGHUP-handler-in-startup-process.patch >>> -- This is the patch proposed by Fuji Masao, I just renamed it. >>> 3. v1-use-standard-SIGHUP-hanlder-in-syslogger-process.patch >>> 4. v1-use-standard-SIGTERM-handler-in-walreceiver-process.patch >>> >>> Please consider these patches for further review. >> >> Thanks for the patches! They look good to me. So barring any objections, >> I will commit them one by one. > > I pushed the following two patches. > > - v1-use-standard-SIGHUP-hanlder-in-syslogger-process.patch > - v1-use-MyLatch-and-standard-SIGHUP-handler-in-startup-process.patch As I told in other thread [1], I'm thinking to revert this patch because this change could have bad side-effect on the startup process waiting for recovery conflict. Before applying the patch, the latch that the startup process used to wait for recovery conflict was different from the latch that SIGHUP signal handler or walreceiver process, etc set to wake the startup process up. So SIGHUP or walreceiver didn't wake the startup process waiting for recovery conflict up unnecessary. But the patch got rid of the dedicated latch for signaling the startup process. This change forced us to use the same latch to make the startup process wait or wake up. Which caused SIGHUP signal handler or walreceiver proces to wake the startup process waiting on the latch for recovery conflict up unnecessarily frequently. While waiting for recovery conflict on buffer pin, deadlock needs to be checked at least every deadlock_timeout. But that frequent wakeups could prevent the deadlock timer from being triggered and could delay that deadlock checks. Therefore, I'm thinking to revert the commit ac22929a26 and 113d3591b8. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/a802f1c0-58d9-bd3f-bc3e-bdad54726855@oss.nttdata.com Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: