Re: HandleParallelMessages contains CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS?

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: HandleParallelMessages contains CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS?
Date: 2016-08-01 20:20:58
Message-ID: 20160801202058.GA529842@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> $SUBJECT seems like a pretty bad idea, because it implies a recursive
> entry to ProcessInterrupts and thence to HandleParallelMessages itself.
> By what reasoning is that call necessary where it's placed?

I notice you just removed the CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in
HandleParallelMessages(). Did you notice that HandleParallelMessages
calls shm_mq_receive(), which calls shm_mq_receive_bytes(), which
contains a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() call?

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2016-08-01 20:25:04 Re: New version numbering practices
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-08-01 20:18:37 PostmasterContext survives into parallel workers!?