Re: Sync Rep v19

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Sync Rep v19
Date: 2011-03-04 04:27:50
Message-ID: AANLkTikfKNvSwunOf2Nyk+vdTS4H3qFWz=BM5pTAC1kj@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 7:01 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> Anyway, this is code in the interrupt handler and only gets executed
>> when we receive SIGTERM for a fast shutdown.
>
> I trust it's not getting *directly* executed from the interrupt handler,
> at least not without ImmediateInterruptOK.

Yes, the backend waits for replication while cancel/die interrupt is
being blocked, i.e., InterruptHoldoffCount > 0. So SIGTERM doesn't
lead the waiting backend to there directly. The backend reaches there
after returning the result.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2011-03-04 04:35:17 Re: Sync Rep v19
Previous Message Robert Treat 2011-03-04 03:00:38 why is max standby delay only 35 minutes?