From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: EINTR in ftruncate() |
Date: | 2022-07-06 21:03:23 |
Message-ID: | 20220706210323.bjjzokyj6nzvofm3@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2022-07-07 08:56:33 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 8:39 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > So I think we need: 1) block most signals, 2) a retry loop *without*
> > interrupt checks.
>
> Yeah. I was also wondering about wrapping the whole function in
> PG_SETMASK(&BlockSig), PG_SETMASK(&UnBlockSig), but also leaving the
> while (rc == EINTR) loop there (without the check for *Pending
> variables), only because otherwise when you attach a debugger and
> continue you'll get a spurious EINTR and it'll interfere with program
> execution. All blockable signals would be blocked *except* SIGQUIT,
> which means that fast shutdown/crash will still work. It seems nice
> to leave that way to interrupt it without resorting to SIGKILL.
Fast shutdown shouldn't use SIGQUIT - did you mean immediate? I think
it's fine to allow immediate shutdowns, but I don't think we should
allow fast shutdowns to interrupt it.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-07-06 21:05:27 | Re: EINTR in ftruncate() |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-07-06 20:56:33 | Re: EINTR in ftruncate() |