| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher |
| Date: | 2007-10-12 18:16:55 |
| Message-ID: | 1192213015.4233.588.camel@ebony.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 13:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > Can you explain further what you meant by "don't disable manual
> > cancels".
>
> I meant that pg_cancel_backend() should still work on autovac workers,
> contrary to Alvaro's suggestion that autovac workers should sometimes
> ignore SIGINT.
>
> Basically the implementation vision I have is that the SIGINT catcher in
> an autovac worker should remain stupid, and any intelligence involved
> should be on the side where we're deciding whether to send a signal or
> not. This probably does involve exposing more state in PGPROC but I see
> nothing much wrong with that. (It might be time to merge inVacuum,
> isAutovacuum, and the additional state into a bitwise vacuumFlags field.)
Gotcha
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brendan Jurd | 2007-10-12 19:28:39 | Re: [HACKERS] quote_literal with NULL |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-12 17:51:42 | Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher |