Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pgsql/src backend/tcop/postgres.c include/misc ...

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: 2002-01-07 23:46:29
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-committers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > I think the much more significant change is the following
> > one not the above one.
> Well, yes; the "above" change was just a last-gasp attempt to make the
> old scheme work, whereas the "following" change introduced the new
> scheme.

As far as I see, the introduction of the ImmediateInterruptOK
flag made HOLD/RESUME_INTERRUPTS scheme pretty meaningless.
Does 'die' interrupts still really need HOLD/RESUME_INTERRUPTS
scheme ? If 'die' interrupts are only for normal shutdown,
even LockWaitCancel() isn't needed.

Hiroshi Inoue

In response to


pgsql-committers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-01-08 00:08:51
Subject: Re: pgsql/src backend/tcop/postgres.c include/misc ...
Previous:From: momjianDate: 2002-01-07 22:36:56
Subject: pgsql/contrib/mysql

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group