| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: shared tempfile was not removed on statement_timeout |
| Date: | 2021-01-26 20:34:25 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKG+MsPtVpBEkMhUv=01ApLUNz61CHoGAzd7etbhQY4sD=A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 12:22 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> At Tue, 26 Jan 2021 11:00:56 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote in
> > Don't we potentially have the same problem with all on_dsm_detach
> > callbacks? Looking at the other on_dsm_detach callbacks, I don't see
> > any CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPT() calls in them, but it seems fragile to
> > assume that.
> >
> > I'd suggest adding HOLD/RESUME_INTERRUPTS() to dsm_detach(). At least
> > around the removal of the callback from the list and calling the
> > callback. Maybe even over the whole function.
>
> Yes, I first came up with HOLD/RESUME_QUERY_INTERRUPTS() to the same
> location.
+1, this seems like a good idea. This is a little bit like the code
near the comments "Don't joggle the elbow of proc_exit".
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2021-01-26 21:00:52 | Re: Online checksums patch - once again |
| Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2021-01-26 20:33:44 | Re: 13dev failed assert: comparetup_index_btree(): ItemPointer values should never be equal |