Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: max_wal_senders must die

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: max_wal_senders must die
Date: 2010-10-28 15:55:27
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> BTW I note that there are no elog(ERROR) calls in that code path at all,
> because syscall errors are ignored, so PANIC is not a concern (as the
> code stands currently, at least).  ISTM it would be good to have a
> comment on SetLatch stating that it's used inside critical sections,
> though.

Yeah, I was thinking the same while reading the code yesterday.  It
already notes that it's used in interrupt handlers, but the critical
section angle is an additional reason not to elog(ERROR).

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David E. WheelerDate: 2010-10-28 16:23:28
Subject: Re: Composite Types and Function Parameters
Previous:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2010-10-28 15:54:10
Subject: Re: plperl arginfo

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group