Re: EINTR in ftruncate()

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: EINTR in ftruncate()
Date: 2022-07-01 17:55:16
Message-ID: 20220701175516.elwda36gwmfqw2c4@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2022-Jul-01, Andres Freund wrote:

> On 2022-07-01 17:41:05 +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Nicola Contu reported two years ago to pgsql-general[1] that they were
> > having sporadic query failures, because EINTR is reported on some system
> > call. I have been told that the problem persists, though it is very
> > infrequent. I propose the attached patch. Kyotaro proposed a slightly
> > different patch which also protects write(), but I think that's not
> > necessary.
>
> What is the reason for the || ProcDiePending || QueryCancelPending bit? What
> if there's dsm operations intentionally done while QueryCancelPending?

That mirrors the test for the other block in that function, which was
added by 63efab4ca139, whose commit message explains:

Allow DSM allocation to be interrupted.

Chris Travers reported that the startup process can repeatedly try to
cancel a backend that is in a posix_fallocate()/EINTR loop and cause it
to loop forever. Teach the retry loop to give up if an interrupt is
pending. Don't actually check for interrupts in that loop though,
because a non-local exit would skip some clean-up code in the caller.

Thanks for looking!

--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2022-07-01 18:08:00 Re: First draft of the PG 15 release notes
Previous Message Andres Freund 2022-07-01 17:53:25 Re: Issue with pg_stat_subscription_stats