On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 9:03 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2022-07-07 08:56:33 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 8:39 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > So I think we need: 1) block most signals, 2) a retry loop *without* > > > interrupt checks. > > > > Yeah. I was also wondering about wrapping the whole function in > > PG_SETMASK(&BlockSig), PG_SETMASK(&UnBlockSig), but also leaving the > > while (rc == EINTR) loop there (without the check for *Pending > > variables), only because otherwise when you attach a debugger and > > continue you'll get a spurious EINTR and it'll interfere with program > > execution. All blockable signals would be blocked *except* SIGQUIT, > > which means that fast shutdown/crash will still work. It seems nice > > to leave that way to interrupt it without resorting to SIGKILL. > > Fast shutdown shouldn't use SIGQUIT - did you mean immediate? I think > it's fine to allow immediate shutdowns, but I don't think we should > allow fast shutdowns to interrupt it.
Err, yeah, that one.
