From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: STANDBY_LOCK_TIMEOUT may not interrupt ProcWaitForSignal()? |
Date: | 2020-12-17 09:45:00 |
Message-ID: | 826e8b24-feb6-5d75-6829-e58f437524b2@oss.nttdata.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020/12/17 11:04, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When the startup process needs to wait for recovery conflict on lock,
> STANDBY_LOCK_TIMEOUT is enabled to interrupt ProcWaitForSignal()
> if necessary. If this timeout happens, StandbyLockTimeoutHandler() is
> called and this function does nothing as follows.
>
> /*
> * StandbyLockTimeoutHandler() will be called if STANDBY_LOCK_TIMEOUT is exceeded.
> * This doesn't need to do anything, simply waking up is enough.
> */
> void
> StandbyLockTimeoutHandler(void)
> {
> }
>
> But if STANDBY_LOCK_TIMEOUT happens just before entering ProcWaitForSignal(),
> the timeout fails to interrupt that wait. Also a signal sent by this timeout
> doesn't interrupt poll() used in ProcWaitForSignal(), on all platforms.
>
> So I think that StandbyLockTimeoutHandler() should do SetLatch(MyLatch)
> so that the timeout can interrupt ProcWaitForSignal() even in those cases.
> Thought?
Patch attached.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
StandbyLockTimeoutHandler_SetLatch_v1.patch | text/plain | 589 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2020-12-17 11:05:33 | Re: New Table Access Methods for Multi and Single Inserts |
Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2020-12-17 09:36:59 | Re: Fail Fast In CTAS/CMV If Relation Already Exists To Avoid Unnecessary Rewrite, Planning Costs |