| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Thoughts about bug #3883 |
| Date: | 2008-01-25 21:16:25 |
| Message-ID: | 19175.1201295785@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> The simplest fix seems to be to invent an additional flag variable
>> "signalAwaited" which is set/cleared by ProcWaitForSignal and checked by
>> LockWaitCancel. This would make cancelling out of a ProcWaitForSignal call
>> exactly analogous to cancelling out of a heavyweight-lock acquisition.
> Is that the flag that is an assertion that no cleanup is needed? Or is that
> something else?
No, the problem is merely to get LockWaitCancel to return "true" so that
StatementCancelHandler will go ahead with the immediate interrupt. No
new cleanup is needed other than resetting the new flag.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-01-25 22:13:52 | Re: Proposal: Integrity check |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-01-25 21:14:56 | Re: Truncate Triggers |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-25 23:00:41 | Re: [HACKERS] Thoughts about bug #3883 |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-01-25 20:52:28 | Re: Thoughts about bug #3883 |