Re: CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in spgdoinsert() isn't helpful

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in spgdoinsert() isn't helpful
Date: 2014-05-29 20:41:37
Message-ID: 16812.1401396097@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> writes:
> On 05/29/2014 11:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> In point of fact, we'd be happy to give up the locks and then throw
>> the error. So I was thinking about inventing some macro or out-of-line
>> function that went about like this:
>>
>> if (InterruptPending && (QueryCancelPending || ProcDiePending))
>> {
>> LWLockReleaseAll();
>> ProcessInterrupts();
>> elog(ERROR, "ProcessInterrupts failed to throw an error");
>> }

> Also checking that CritSectionCount == 0 seems like a good idea...

Yeah, and there may be a couple other details like that. Right now
I'm just thinking about not allowing LWLocks to block the cancel.
I guess something else to consider is whether InterruptHoldoffCount
could be larger than the number of held LWLocks; if so, that would
prevent this from working as desired.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-05-29 20:42:31 Re: CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in spgdoinsert() isn't helpful
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2014-05-29 20:39:56 Re: Extended Prefetching using Asynchronous IO - proposal and patch