Обсуждение: bgworker sigusr1 handler

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка

bgworker sigusr1 handler

От
Robert Haas
Дата:
Just for fun, I implemented a toy background worker tonight using the
new bgworker framework.  Generally, it went well, and I'm pleased with
the design of the new facility. However, I did notice one oddity.  I
initialized the worker flags like this:
       worker.bgw_flags = BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS;

And... latches didn't work.  It turns out that if you request database
access, then the SIGUSR1 handler is set to procsignal_sigusr1_handler,
which is fine.  But if you don't, it gets set to SIG_IGN.  And the
result of *that* is that if someone sets a latch for which the
background process is waiting, the background process fails to notice.

Now, once you understand what's going on here, it's not hard to work
around.  But it seems to me that it would be a saner default to set
the signal handler to something like the bgwriter handler, which just
calls latch_sigusr1_handler.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: bgworker sigusr1 handler

От
Michael Paquier
Дата:



On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
Just for fun, I implemented a toy background worker tonight using the
new bgworker framework.  Generally, it went well, and I'm pleased with
the design of the new facility. However, I did notice one oddity.  I
initialized the worker flags like this:

        worker.bgw_flags = BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS;

And... latches didn't work.  It turns out that if you request database
access, then the SIGUSR1 handler is set to procsignal_sigusr1_handler,
which is fine.  But if you don't, it gets set to SIG_IGN.  And the
result of *that* is that if someone sets a latch for which the
background process is waiting, the background process fails to notice.

Now, once you understand what's going on here, it's not hard to work
around.  But it seems to me that it would be a saner default to set
the signal handler to something like the bgwriter handler, which just
calls latch_sigusr1_handler.

There is currently a bug with bgworkers and SIGHUP. If postmaster receives a SIGHUP, it does not notify its registered bgworkers:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqQ-ccL9Q7wxpWNaG5Zs-hMLh_ayQb=rM2=+PXtWd+8ogw@mail.gmail.com

You can have a try with the example I provided, then try to reload parameters with "pg_ctl reload" and you will notice that bgworkers do not process SIGHUP as a normal backend would do.
--
Michael

Re: bgworker sigusr1 handler

От
Alvaro Herrera
Дата:
Robert Haas escribió:
> Just for fun, I implemented a toy background worker tonight using the
> new bgworker framework.  Generally, it went well, and I'm pleased with
> the design of the new facility.

Thanks.

> However, I did notice one oddity.  I initialized the worker flags like
> this:
>
>         worker.bgw_flags = BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS;
>
> And... latches didn't work.  It turns out that if you request database
> access, then the SIGUSR1 handler is set to procsignal_sigusr1_handler,
> which is fine.  But if you don't, it gets set to SIG_IGN.  And the
> result of *that* is that if someone sets a latch for which the
> background process is waiting, the background process fails to notice.
>
> Now, once you understand what's going on here, it's not hard to work
> around.  But it seems to me that it would be a saner default to set
> the signal handler to something like the bgwriter handler, which just
> calls latch_sigusr1_handler.

Sounds sensible -- done that way.

--
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services