Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 21:57:17 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>,
	Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, lizenko79@gmail.com,
	PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: BUG #17073: docs - "Improve signal handling reliability"
Message-ID: <202107010157.z24ttolwr55g@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKFQuwbxrx5YnRniPBCkVb4hA12gQES0GNPofDN03L5gHzZN7g@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202107010157.z24ttolwr55g%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2021-Jun-30, David G. Johnston wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 5:54 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
> wrote:

> > Since this explains the commit 2945a488a, it's better to describe
> > something like the following?

> The wording still needs some work...but is this even release note worthy?
> 
> We forget to check for interrupts before sleeping in an otherwise busy-wait
> loop.  We corrected the oversight.

Yeah, it's a good question.  I wonder if this should be back-patched, so
it'd be noted as a bugfix in the next set of minors rather than as a new
feature for 14.

(It's not a busy-wait loop, just a sleep, unless I misunderstand.)

> Most of what I'm reading says this only impacted the startup of the standby
> process; normal operations already worked correctly.  Is that correct?

Yes, because the change is in WaitForWALToBecomeAvailable().

-- 
Álvaro Herrera              Valdivia, Chile  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Right now the sectors on the hard disk run clockwise, but I heard a rumor that
you can squeeze 0.2% more throughput by running them counterclockwise.
It's worth the effort. Recommended."  (Gerry Pourwelle)