Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2020 12:12:06 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <20201105.121206.819769369617763972.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
To: bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com
Cc: masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Use standard SIGHUP and SIGTERM handlers in autoprewarm module
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALj2ACUdvTiD3zpGMsO6HcMOLYDs=LXRkX72NUCExVdna=qP=Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ce414f11-1418-511c-c840-a3cdd7f2b232@oss.nttdata.com>
	<6b561c73-27ce-7079-b6e5-440e49653810@oss.nttdata.com>
	<CALj2ACUdvTiD3zpGMsO6HcMOLYDs=LXRkX72NUCExVdna=qP=Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 26.1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

At Wed, 4 Nov 2020 21:16:29 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote in 
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 2:36 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
> >
> > Regarding other two patches, I think that it's better to use MyLatch
> > rather than MyProc->procLatch or walrcv->latch in WaitLatch() and
> > ResetLatch(), like other code does. Attached are the updated versions
> > of the patches. Thought?
> >
> 
> +1 for replacing MyProc->procLatch with MyLatch in the autoprewarm
> module, and the patch looks good to me.

Looks good to me, too.

> I'm not quite sure to replace all the places in the walreceiver
> process, for instance in WalRcvForceReply() we are using spinlock to
> acquire the latch pointer and . Others may have better thoughts on
> this.

The SIGTERM part looks good. The only difference between
WalRcvSigHupHandler and SignalHandlerForConfigReload is whether latch
is set or not.  I don't think it's a problem that config-reload causes
an extra wakeup.  Couldn't we do the same thing for SIGHUP?

We might even be able to reload config file in
ProcessWalRcvInterrupts().

regards.

-- 
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center