Re: Parallel worker hangs while handling errors.

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Parallel worker hangs while handling errors.
Date: 2020-08-07 18:15:35
Message-ID: CA+TgmobB7Xyh8E1Uy3xWyyuys_oUGajJz7Xbu3sp0hzDz0EFcw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 2:00 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> The point of the sigdelset is that if somewhere later on, we install
> the BlockSig mask, then SIGQUIT will remain unblocked.

I mean, we're just repeating the same points here, but that's not what
the comment says.

> You asserted
> upthread that noplace in these processes ever does so; maybe that's
> true today, or maybe not,

It's easily checked using 'git grep'.

> but the intent of this code is that *once
> we get through initialization* SIGQUIT will remain unblocked.

I can't speak to the intent, but I can speak to what the comment says.

> I'll concede that it's not 100% clear whether or not these processes
> need to re-block SIGQUIT during error recovery.

I think it's entirely clear that they do not, and I have explained my
reasoning already.

> I repeat, though,
> that I'm disinclined to change that without some evidence that there's
> actually a problem with the way it works now.

I've also already explained why I don't agree with this perspective.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-08-07 18:41:41 Re: PROC_IN_ANALYZE stillborn 13 years ago
Previous Message Robert Haas 2020-08-07 18:03:37 Re: PROC_IN_ANALYZE stillborn 13 years ago