Re: Proposal for Signal Detection Refactoring

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposal for Signal Detection Refactoring
Date: 2018-09-21 04:46:11
Message-ID: 20180921044611.GH1338@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 03:08:34PM +0200, Chris Travers wrote:
> So here's a small patch. I will add it for the next commit fest unless
> anyone has any reason I shouldn't.

- return InterruptPending && (QueryCancelPending || ProcDiePending);
+ return PENDING_INTERRUPT_LEVEL() >= QUERY_CANCEL;

This is pretty similar to lock levels, where it is pretty hard to put a
strict monotone hierarchy when it comes to such interruptions. The new
code does not seem like an improvment either, as for example in the code
mentioned above, you know directly what are the actions involved, which
is not the case with the new code style.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2018-09-21 04:52:18 Re: Proposal for Signal Detection Refactoring
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-09-21 04:43:31 Re: Strange failure in LWLock on skink in REL9_5_STABLE