| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
| Cc: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SIGTERM -> elog(FATAL) -> proc_exit() is probably a bad idea |
| Date: | 2001-01-16 21:11:49 |
| Message-ID: | 14110.979679509@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> writes:
> It's very easy to don't notice ERROR - it's just transaction
> abort and transaction abort is normal thing, - but errors inside
> critical sections are *unexpected* things which mean that something
> totally wrong in code.
Okay. That means we do need two kinds of critical sections, then,
because the crit sections I've just sprinkled everywhere are not that
critical ;-). They just want to hold off cancel/die interrupts.
I'll take care of fixing what I broke, but does anyone have suggestions
for good names for the two concepts? The best I could come up with
offhand is BEGIN/END_CRIT_SECTION and BEGIN/END_SUPER_CRIT_SECTION,
but I'm not pleased with that... Ideas?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-01-16 21:21:31 | Re: Re: INIT DB FAILURE |
| Previous Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2001-01-16 20:51:21 | RE: SIGTERM -> elog(FATAL) -> proc_exit() is probably a bad idea |