From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: shm_mq_wait_internal gets stuck forever on fast shutdown |
Date: | 2017-08-21 14:29:02 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYXoZ=1Q_O2=j3smkbzVV3rVRfh8iDryt-bKdeSuev8pg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Makes sense, and I'm not especially concerned. If the expected solution to
> such usage is to use non-blocking calls, that's fine with me.
>
> I partly wanted to put this out there to help the next person looking into
> it. Or myself, when I've forgotten and go looking again ;) . But also, to
> ensure that this was in fact fully expected behaviour not an oversight re
> applying shm_mq to non-bgworker endpoints.
Yep, it's expected. It's possible I should have designed it
differently, so if someone does feel concerned at some point we can
certainly debate how to change things, but what you're describing
matches my expectations and it seems OK to me, pretty much.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-08-21 15:23:22 | Re: Re: ICU collation variant keywords and pg_collation entries (Was: [BUGS] Crash report for some ICU-52 (debian8) COLLATE and work_mem values) |
Previous Message | Alexander Kumenkov | 2017-08-21 14:25:37 | Re: index-only count(*) for indexes supporting bitmap scans |