On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 11:39 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>>> To set or clear the flag from PGPROC, to send or handle a signal, we have
>>> to acquire ProcArrayLock. Is that safe to do in a signal handler?
>> No. If it's trying to do that then it's broken. In fact, if it's
>> trying to do much of anything beyond setting a "volatile" flag variable
>> in a signal handler, it's broken --- unless there are special provisions
>> to limit where the signal trap can occur, which would be pretty much
>> unacceptable for a multiplexed-signal implementation.
> Ok, I was afraid so.
> I think we'll need to replace the proposed bitmask with an array of
> sig_atomic_t flags then, and do without locking.
Thanks! I updated the patch so (based on signal_handling_v2-heikki-1.patch).
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: ITAGAKI Takahiro||Date: 2008-12-09 06:28:46|
|Subject: Re: contrib/pg_stat_statements 1202|
|Previous:||From: Euler Taveira de Oliveira||Date: 2008-12-09 04:31:05|
|Subject: operator does not exist: smallint <> smallint|