From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: EINTR in ftruncate() |
Date: | 2022-07-06 00:20:15 |
Message-ID: | 20220706002015.57q6dvife3c3fjxz@awork3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2022-07-04 13:07:50 +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2022-Jul-01, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > On 2022-07-01 19:55:16 +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > On 2022-Jul-01, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > > > 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:
>
> > That whole approach seems quite wrong to me. At the absolute very least the
> > code needs to check if interrupts are being processed in the current context
> > before just giving up due to ProcDiePending || QueryCancelPending.
>
> For the time being, I can just push the addition of the EINTR retry
> without testing ProcDiePending || QueryCancelPending.
I think we'd be better off disabling at least some signals during
dsm_impl_posix_resize(). I'm afraid we'll otherwise just find another
variation of these problems. I haven't checked the source of ftruncate, but
what Thomas dug up for fallocate makes it pretty clear that our current
approach of just retrying again and again isn't good enough. It's a bit more
obvious that it's a problem for fallocate, but I don't think it's worth having
different solutions for the two.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-07-06 00:20:25 | Re: doc: Fix description of how the default user name is chosen |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-07-06 00:12:09 | Re: doc: Clarify Routines and Extension Membership |