Re: global barrier & atomics in signal handlers (Re: Atomic operations within spinlocks)

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: global barrier & atomics in signal handlers (Re: Atomic operations within spinlocks)
Date: 2020-06-11 17:31:28
Message-ID: 20200611173128.cko6e2bvovbdxrdf@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2020-06-10 13:37:59 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 6:54 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > What do you think about my idea of having a BEGIN/END_SIGNAL_HANDLER?
> > That'd make it much easier to write assertions forbidding palloc, 64bit
> > atomics, ...
>
> I must have missed the previous place where you suggested this, but I
> think it's a good idea.

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200606023103.avzrctgv7476xj7i%40alap3.anarazel.de

It'd be neat if we could do that entirely within pqsignal(). But that'd
require some additional state (I think an array of handlers, indexed by
signum).

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hamid Akhtar 2020-06-11 17:40:38 Re: WIP/PoC for parallel backup
Previous Message Andres Freund 2020-06-11 17:26:53 Re: Atomic operations within spinlocks