Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 09:46:02 -0400
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>,
	Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, andres@anarazel.de, thomas.munro@gmail.com,
	tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com, ah@cybertec.at, magnus@hagander.net,
	robertmhaas@gmail.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: shared-memory based stats collector
Message-ID: <20200907134602.GA29590@tamriel.snowman.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="xS4m2KYHz99PVVNC"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200907020419.GC2455@paquier.xyz>
 <20200903171659.GO29590@tamriel.snowman.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk


--xS4m2KYHz99PVVNC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Greetings,

* Stephen Frost (sfrost@snowman.net) wrote:
> * Kyotaro Horiguchi (horikyota.ntt@gmail.com) wrote:
> > The commit 8e19a82640 changed SIGQUIT handler of almost all processes
> > not to run atexit callbacks for safety. Archiver process should behave
> > the same way for the same reason. Exit status changes 1 to 2 but that
> > doesn't make any behavioral change.
>=20
> Shouldn't this:
>=20
> a) be back-patched, as the other change was
> b) also include a change to have the stats collector (which I realize is
>    removed later on in this patch set, but we're talking about fixing
>    existing things..) for the same reason, and because there isn't much
>    point in trying to write out the stats after we get a SIGQUIT, since
>    we're just going to blow them away again since we're going to go
>    through crash recovery..?

* Michael Paquier (michael@paquier.xyz) wrote:
> 0001 is just a piece of refactoring, so I see no strong argument in
> favor of a backpatch, IMHO.

No, 0001 changes the SIGQUIT handler for the archiver process, which is
what 8e19a82640 was about changing for a bunch of the other subprocesses
and which was back-patched all the way, so I'm a bit confused about why
you're saying it's just refactoring..?

Note that exit() and _exit() aren't the same, and the latter is what's
now being used in SignalHandlerForCrashExit.

Thanks,

Stephen

--xS4m2KYHz99PVVNC
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=FLke
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--xS4m2KYHz99PVVNC--