MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CALj2ACWd5apddj6Cd885WwJ6LquYu_G81C4GoR4xSoDV1x-FEA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b5eab65a-e11b-6435-b6aa-dac206e17d38@gmail.com>
 <CAHGQGwFBnBQZbt4e9qjZoiM0GW2eXCvS=Ny5wt+s1-+iJpK15A@mail.gmail.com>
 <29CA73B2-872A-4D7D-B8E9-D89F76DC18AF@gmail.com>
 <CAFiTN-vfzMucegigUQhOQgE0FNGhf1ixauQ1fYkbNsvTpBOZRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHGQGwGCuccg81-PCMFbKDuwU-R7aNTD21WpkB9aL_5qopTURg@mail.gmail.com>
 <acyUrI2kV64lfOio@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
In-Reply-To: <acyUrI2kV64lfOio@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2026 23:57:50 +0900
Message-ID: 
 <CAHGQGwFg-2LYk-=m0R7Z5wnm_j9MH-=NK2P++LgPUvoFU6SNJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Avoid multiple SetLatch() calls in procsignal_sigusr1_handler()
To: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
Cc: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>,
	Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHGQGwFg-2LYk-%3Dm0R7Z5wnm_j9MH-%3DNK2P%2B%2BLgPUvoFU6SNJQ%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 1, 2026 at 12:44=E2=80=AFPM Bertrand Drouvot
<bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2026 at 12:17:28PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 1:21=E2=80=AFPM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.=
com> wrote:
> > > Shouldn't we add a comment to the handler function header stating tha=
t
> > > SetLatch should be called by the caller? procsignal_sigusr1_handler()
> > > is currently the only caller and handles it, but this would ensure an=
y
> > > future callers are responsible for the same.
> >
> > I *guess* the original comment was added because readers of the interru=
pt
> > handling code might just wonder why SetLatch() isn't called. If so, it =
makes
> > sense to keep that explanation in the handler functions themselves.
> >
> > The existing comment seems sufficient to me. The code isn't complicated=
 enough
> > to require more comment for future use of functions in advance, and we =
can
> > revisit it if the functions change in the future. Based on this, I'm th=
inking
> > to commit v2 patch.
>
> That sounds reasonable to me to proceed as v2 is doing.

Thanks! I've pushed the patch.

Regards,

--=20
Fujii Masao