From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: HOLD_INTERRUPTS() vs ProcSignalBarrier |
Date: | 2022-05-25 03:47:11 |
Message-ID: | CA+hUKGJevy55xyen0xeMMD1=uGXPSpnUBu3=MR7AOky_QF36Sg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 3:08 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2022-05-25 14:47:41 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > My question is: do we really need to suppress these non-ereporting
> > interrupts in all the places we currently do HOLD_INTERRUPTS()?
>
> Most of those should be fairly short / only block on lwlocks, small amounts of
> IO. I'm not sure how much of an issue this is. Are there actually CFIs inside
> those HOLD_INTERRUPT sections?
The concrete example I have in mind is the one created by me in
637668fb. That can reach a walkdir() that unlinks a ton of temporary
files, and has a CFI() in it.
Maybe that particular case should just be using
HOLD_CANCEL_INTERRUPTS() instead, but that's not quite bulletproof
enough (see note about parallel interrupts not respecting it), which
made me start wondering about some other way to say "hold everything
except non-ereturning interrupts".
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-05-25 03:47:56 | Re: Add --{no-,}bypassrls flags to createuser |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-05-25 03:46:55 | Re: Improving connection scalability (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c) |