| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PG 10: could not generate random cancel key |
| Date: | 2018-07-18 01:57:56 |
| Message-ID: | 20180718015756.GH2998@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 01:31:01PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 2018-Jul-17, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> if (RAND_status() == 0)
>>>> RAND_poll();
>>>
>>> Looks like a recipe for an infinite loop. At least, I think we ought
>>> to have a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() in that loop.
>>
>> What loop?
The CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() addition could be an addition if the number
of retries gets high enough, but that just does not apply here.
> Ugh, I'm not doing very well today, am I? I read that as while() but
> it says if().
Time for vacations :)
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-07-18 02:02:47 | Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: Keep one postmaster monitoring pipe per process |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-07-18 01:11:19 | Re: ENOSPC FailedAssertion("!(RefCountErrors == 0)" |