| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [v9.3] Extra Daemons (Re: elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a database) |
| Date: | 2012-11-23 16:18:29 |
| Message-ID: | 20224.1353687509@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> If the bgworker developer gets really tense about this stuff (or
> anything at all, really), they can create a completely new sigmask and
> do sigaddset() etc. Since this is all C code, we cannot keep them from
> doing anything, really; I think what we need to provide here is just a
> framework to ease development of simple cases.
An important point here is that if a bgworker does need to do its own
signal manipulation --- for example, installing custom signal handlers
--- it would be absolutely catastrophic for us to unblock signals before
reaching worker-specific code; signals might arrive before the process
had a chance to fix their handling. So I'm against Heikki's auto-unblock
proposal.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-11-23 16:24:48 | Re: [Re] [Re] Re: PANIC: could not write to log file |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-11-23 15:44:14 | Re: autovacuum truncate exclusive lock round two |