| From: | "Shulgin, Oleksandr" <oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Subject: | Re: On-demand running query plans using auto_explain and signals |
| Date: | 2015-09-08 16:53:52 |
| Message-ID: | CACACo5T8u+=XrDBbtbM4MkXJJ2StxmtpovO5bM3NmrzQiWQsQw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Shulgin, Oleksandr <
oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de> wrote:
>
> >> The real problem could be if the process that was signaled to connect
> to the message queue never handles the interrupt, and we keep waiting
> forever in shm_mq_receive(). We could add a timeout parameter or just let
> the user cancel the call: send a cancellation request, use
> pg_cancel_backend() or set statement_timeout before running this.
> >
> > This is valid question - for begin we can use a statement_timeout and we
> don't need to design some special (if you don't hold some important lock).
> > My example (the code has prototype quality) is little bit longer, but it
> work without global lock - the requester doesn't block any other
>
> I'll update the commitfest patch to use this technique.
>
Please find attached v4.
--
Alex
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| explain-pid-v4.patch | text/x-patch | 22.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2015-09-08 17:00:11 | Re: gin_fuzzy_search_limit and postgresql.conf.sample |
| Previous Message | Shay Rojansky | 2015-09-08 16:43:19 | Odd/undocumented precedence of concatenation operator |