From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: HandleParallelMessages contains CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS? |
Date: | 2016-08-02 20:42:38 |
Message-ID: | 20300.1470170558@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> I notice you just removed the CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in
>> HandleParallelMessages(). Did you notice that HandleParallelMessages
>> calls shm_mq_receive(), which calls shm_mq_receive_bytes(), which
>> contains a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() call?
After study, I believe that that CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() is unreachable
given that HandleParallelMessages passes nowait = true. But it's not
unlikely that future changes in shm_mq.c might introduce such calls that
are reachable.
> I wonder whether we should make use of HOLD_INTERRUPTS/RESUME_INTERRUPTS
> to avoid the recursion scenario here.
I concluded that that would be good future-proofing, whether or not it's
strictly necessary today, so I pushed it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-08-02 20:44:27 | Re: PostgreSQL 10 kick-off |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2016-08-02 20:12:20 | Re: Why we lost Uber as a user |