Re: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations

Hi,

On 2014-07-26 18:16:01 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-07-26 11:32:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > "MauMau" <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > > [ sinval catchup signal -> ProcessCatchupEvent -> WaitLatch -> deadlock ]
> >
> > Ugh.
> >
> > One line of thought is that it's pretty unsafe to be doing anything
> > as complicated as transaction start/commit in a signal handler, even one
> > that is sure it's not interrupting anything else.
>
> Yea, that's really not nice.

MauMau, we don't do this anymore. Could you verify that the issue is
fixed for you?

I'd completely forgotten that this thread made me work on moving
everything complicated out of signal handlers...

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services