Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > I think the much more significant change is the following
> > one not the above one.
> 
> Well, yes; the "above" change was just a last-gasp attempt to make the
> old scheme work, whereas the "following" change introduced the new
> scheme.

As far as I see, the introduction of the ImmediateInterruptOK
flag made HOLD/RESUME_INTERRUPTS scheme pretty meaningless.
Does 'die' interrupts still really need HOLD/RESUME_INTERRUPTS
scheme ? If 'die' interrupts are only for normal shutdown,
even LockWaitCancel() isn't needed.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue

In response to

• Re: pgsql/src backend/tcop/postgres.c include/misc ... at 2002-01-07 04:54:27 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: pgsql/src backend/tcop/postgres.c include/misc ... at 2002-01-08 00:08:51 from Tom Lane

pgsql-committers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2002-01-08 00:08:51
	Subject: Re: pgsql/src backend/tcop/postgres.c include/misc ...
Previous:	From: momjian	Date: 2002-01-07 22:36:56
	Subject: pgsql/contrib/mysql my2pg.pl