| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Marc Cousin <cousinmarc(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework |
| Date: | 2012-07-11 21:03:35 |
| Message-ID: | 18744.1342040615@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mi jul 11 15:47:47 -0400 2012:
>> ... that means we need a pretty consistent scheme for
>> where to call InitializeTimeouts. But we already have the same issue
>> with respect to on_proc_exit callbacks, so we can just add
>> InitializeTimeouts calls in the same places as on_exit_reset().
> I do agree that InitializeTimeouts is not optimally placed. We
> discussed this upthread.
> Some of the calls of on_exit_reset() are placed in code that's about to
> die. Surely we don't need InitializeTimeouts() then. Maybe we should
> have another routine, say InitializeProcess (noting we already
> InitProcess so maybe some name would be good), that calls both
> on_exit_reset and InitializeTimeouts.
Yeah, I was wondering about that too, but it seems a bit ad-hoc from a
modularity standpoint. I gave some consideration to the idea of putting
these calls directly into fork_process(), but we'd have to be very sure
that there would never be a case where it was incorrect to do them after
forking.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-07-11 21:04:19 | Re: pgsql_fdw in contrib |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-07-11 21:03:03 | Re: Schema version management |