Horton

Re: Interrupts vs signals

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Date: 2024-11-19T21:02:39Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 11:09 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> Names don't match here.  I prefer _CONTINUE.  As for the general one,
> I'm on the fence about INTERRUPT_GENERAL_WAKEUP, since wakeups aren't
> necessarily involved, but I don't have a specific better idea so I'm
> not objecting...  Perhaps it's more like INTERRUPT_GENERAL_NOTIFY,
> except that _NOTIFY is already a well known thing, and the procsignal
> patch introduces INTERRUPT_NOTIFY...

INTERRUPT_GENERAL with no third word isn't out of the question, either.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Commits

  1. Ignore SIGINT in walwriter and walsummarizer

  2. Split WaitEventSet functions to separate source file

  3. Use ModifyWaitEvent to update exit_on_postmaster_death

  4. Remove unused ShutdownLatchSupport() function

  5. Rename two functions that wake up other processes

  6. Use ProcNumbers instead of direct Latch pointers to address other procs

  7. Clean up WaitLatch calls that passed latch without WL_LATCH_SET

  8. Remove unneeded #include

  9. Remove unused latch

  10. Remove support for background workers without BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS.