| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostmasterContext survives into parallel workers!? |
| Date: | 2016-08-01 22:18:27 |
| Message-ID: | 18843.1470089907@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> (Also vaguely on the list of things to clean up: can't we make it so
> that bgworkers aren't launched from inside a signal handler? Blech.)
So are other postmaster children, I believe. We could probably try
to rewrite the postmaster to not do useful work in signal handlers,
but rely on a lot of volatile flags set by the handlers. Not convinced
this would be anything but a cosmetic improvement, though. And it
could create new portability problems to replace any that it removed;
we'd have to be *absolutely* certain that the main select() call would
return with EINTR rather than resuming after any interrupt.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-08-01 22:18:29 | Re: PostmasterContext survives into parallel workers!? |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-08-01 22:18:22 | Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |