| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Interruptible sleeps (was Re: CommitFest 2009-07: Yay, Kevin! Thanks, reviewers!) |
| Date: | 2010-09-03 04:19:17 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTim+piEYZ03H-5vCVZ124TJRUO+ZYHELhkf9fa0L@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> + * XXX: Is it safe to elog(ERROR) in a signal handler?
>>>
>>> No, it isn't.
>
>> We should use elog(FATAL) or check proc_exit_inprogress, instead?
>
> elog(FATAL) is *certainly* not a better idea. I think there's really
> nothing that can be done, you just have to silently ignore the error.
Hmm.. some functions called by a signal handler use elog(FATAL), e.g.,
RecoveryConflictInterrupt() do that when unknown conflict mode is given
as an argument. Are these calls unsafe, too?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-09-03 06:36:27 | Re: Synchronous replication - patch status inquiry |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-09-03 03:50:50 | Re: Synchronous replication - patch status inquiry |