| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: EINTR in ftruncate() |
| Date: | 2022-07-01 17:30:16 |
| Message-ID: | 20220701173016.mpt6n2yl5dyta7o6@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2022-07-01 17:41:05 +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Nicola Contu reported two years ago to pgsql-general[1] that they were
> having sporadic query failures, because EINTR is reported on some system
> call. I have been told that the problem persists, though it is very
> infrequent. I propose the attached patch. Kyotaro proposed a slightly
> different patch which also protects write(), but I think that's not
> necessary.
What is the reason for the || ProcDiePending || QueryCancelPending bit? What
if there's dsm operations intentionally done while QueryCancelPending?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-07-01 17:48:20 | Re: Issue with pg_stat_subscription_stats |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-07-01 17:26:39 | Re: Reduce timing overhead of EXPLAIN ANALYZE using rdtsc? |