Re: [HACKERS] unexpected SIGALRM

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > Anyway I found some unexpected SIGALRM cases.
> > It may be caused by a cygwin's bug but isn't it safer to
> > return immediately from HandleDeadLock in any platform
> > unless the backend is waiting for a lock ?
>
> If we can't rely on the signal handling facilities to interrupt only
> when they're supposed to, I think HandleDeadlock is the least of our
> worries :-(.

I'm not sure if it's a cygwin issue.
Isn't it preferable for a dbms to be insensitive to
other(e.g OS's) bugs anyway ?
Or how about blocking SIGALRM signals except when
the backend is waiting for a lock ? It seems a better
fix because it would also fix another issue.

> I'm not excited about inserting an ad-hoc test to work
> around (only) one manifestation of a system-level bug.

OK so cygwin isn't considered as a supported platform ?

retgards,
Hiroshi Inoue