From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Use SIGTERM instead of SIGUSR1 for slotsync worker to exit during
 promotion?
In-reply-to: 
 <CAHGQGwFzNYroAxSoyJhqTU-pH=t4Ej6RyvhVmBZ91Exj_TPMMQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAHGQGwFzNYroAxSoyJhqTU-pH=t4Ej6RyvhVmBZ91Exj_TPMMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
	message dated "Thu, 19 Mar 2026 01:05:29 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <768856.1773851031.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2026 12:23:51 -0400
Message-ID: <768857.1773851031@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/768857.1773851031%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes:
> I noticed that during standby promotion the startup process sends SIGUSR1 to
> the slotsync worker to make it exit. Is there a reason for using SIGUSR1?
> Would it make sense to send SIGTERM instead, so the worker can exit promptly
> even while waiting?

One consideration here is that we expect all processes to receive
SIGTERM from init at the beginning of an operating system shutdown
sequence.  Background workers should exit at that point only if their
services will not be needed during database shutdown.  While it
sounds plausible that a slotsync worker should exit immediately,
I'm not quite sure if that's what we want.

			regards, tom lane