| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql/src backend/tcop/postgres.c include/misc ... |
| Date: | 2002-01-05 06:07:29 |
| Message-ID: | 3C369821.91729BE7@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > Oh I see. But this seems to change the behabior significantly
> > at least for die signals.
>
> Well, it considerably reduces the number of places at which either
> signal will be accepted, but that's exactly the point. The code
> as written was accepting the signals in many more places than we
> envisioned in the original discussion, and I'm unconvinced that
> that's safe.
>
> AFAIK this should at worst increase the interrupt response time
> from order-of-microseconds to order-of-milliseconds, so I'm not
> especially worried. Sub-second response time is plenty good enough
> for either kind of interrupt, IMHO.
When are cancel or die interrupts accepted while
executing a long query ?
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-05 06:08:54 | Re: pgsql/src backend/tcop/postgres.c include/misc ... |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-05 04:35:25 | Re: pgsql/src backend/tcop/postgres.c include/misc ... |