On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 16:36 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There's a comment that looks related to this issue in syncrep.c. It reads: > > > > /* > > * We don't receive SIGHUPs at this point, so resetting > > * synchronous_standby_names has no effect on waiters. > > */ > > > > It's unclear to me what this actually means. Is there some reason we > > CAN'T receive SIGHUPs at that point, or have we just chosen not to > > (for unexplained reasons)? > > Not sure. Simon? > > It seems harmless to receive SIGHUP at that point.
You pointed out this out to me, so if you want I can explain back to you again ;-) Signals are blocked over that section of code. We could write a scary bit of code to get around that, but it smells badly of kludge. What do you think we should do? -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
