Re: pgsql/src backend/tcop/postgres.c include/misc ...

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pgsql/src backend/tcop/postgres.c include/misc ...
Date: 2002-01-08 00:08:51
Message-ID: 15234.1010448531@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers

Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> As far as I see, the introduction of the ImmediateInterruptOK
> flag made HOLD/RESUME_INTERRUPTS scheme pretty meaningless.

Not at all. The point of HOLD_INTERRUPTS is to disable any
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS call that might be issued by subroutines
you call. That's very different from ImmediateInterruptOK, which
can be set true only in *extremely* limited areas wherein we can
fully understand the behavior of executing the cancel/die request
in the signal handler.

> Does 'die' interrupts still really need HOLD/RESUME_INTERRUPTS
> scheme ? If 'die' interrupts are only for normal shutdown,
> even LockWaitCancel() isn't needed.

It's needed for cancels. Possibly we could skip it during shutdown,
but trying to do that seems risky and pointless. (If we skip it
then we are leaving the lock-manager shared memory in a bad state,
which is exactly what die() should not do.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hiroshi Inoue 2002-01-08 00:58:24 Re: pgsql/src backend/tcop/postgres.c include/misc ...
Previous Message Hiroshi Inoue 2002-01-07 23:46:29 Re: pgsql/src backend/tcop/postgres.c include/misc ...