Re: Use standard SIGHUP and SIGTERM handlers in autoprewarm module
Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
At Tue, 15 Dec 2020 23:10:28 +0900, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in > > I pushed the following two patches. > > - v1-use-standard-SIGHUP-hanlder-in-syslogger-process.patch > > - v1-use-MyLatch-and-standard-SIGHUP-handler-in-startup-process.patch > > As I told in other thread [1], I'm thinking to revert this patch > because this change could have bad side-effect on the startup > process waiting for recovery conflict. > > Before applying the patch, the latch that the startup process > used to wait for recovery conflict was different from the latch > that SIGHUP signal handler or walreceiver process, etc set to > wake the startup process up. So SIGHUP or walreceiver didn't > wake the startup process waiting for recovery conflict up unnecessary. > > But the patch got rid of the dedicated latch for signaling > the startup process. This change forced us to use the same latch > to make the startup process wait or wake up. Which caused SIGHUP > signal handler or walreceiver proces to wake the startup process > waiting on the latch for recovery conflict up unnecessarily > frequently. > > While waiting for recovery conflict on buffer pin, deadlock needs > to be checked at least every deadlock_timeout. But that frequent > wakeups could prevent the deadlock timer from being triggered and > could delay that deadlock checks. I thought that spurious wakeups don't harm. But actually ResolveRecoveryConflictWithBufferPin doesn't consider spurious wakeups. Only the timer woke up ResolveRecoveryConflictWithBufferPin before the patch comes. Currently SIGHUP and XLogFlush() (on walreceiver) also wake up startup process. For a moment I thought that ResolveRecoveryConflictWithBufferPin should wake up at shutdown time by the old recovery latch but it's not the case since it wakes up after all blockers go away. It seems to me simpler to revert the patches than making the function properly handle spurious wakeups. > Therefore, I'm thinking to revert the commit ac22929a26 and > 113d3591b8. > > [1] > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/a802f1c0-58d9-bd3f-bc3e-bdad54726855@oss.nttdata.com As the result, I agree to revert them. But I think we need to add a comment for the reason we don't use MyLatch for recovery-wakeup after reverting them. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
Commits
-
Revert "Get rid of the dedicated latch for signaling the startup process".
- 00f690a23993 14.0 landed
-
Improve log message about termination of background workers.
- 98e2d58d66c8 14.0 landed
-
Use standard SIGTERM signal handler die() in test_shm_mq worker.
- ef848f4ac5a4 14.0 landed
-
Use standard SIGHUP and SIGTERM signal handlers in worker_spi.
- 2a0847720ae6 14.0 landed
-
Use standard SIGHUP and SIGTERM handlers in walreceiver.
- 1a2ae7c50fb4 14.0 landed
-
pg_prewarm: make autoprewarm leader use standard SIGHUP and SIGTERM handlers.
- 53f614f1302d 14.0 landed
-
Get rid of the dedicated latch for signaling the startup process.
- ac22929a2613 14.0 landed
-
Use standard SIGHUP handler in syslogger.
- 02d332297f9b 14.0 landed
-
Use PostgresSigHupHandler in more places.
- 1e53fe0e70f6 13.0 cited
-
Fix race condition with unprotected use of a latch pointer variable.
- 45f9d08684d9 11.0 cited
-
Remove remnants of ImmediateInterruptOK handling.
- 2505ce0be0b6 9.5.0 cited
-
Introduce Streaming Replication.
- 40f908bdcdc7 9.0.0 cited