Re: SIGTERM -> elog(FATAL) -> proc_exit() is probably a bad idea

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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