Re: killing pg_dump leaves backend process

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: killing pg_dump leaves backend process
Date: 2013-08-12 17:56:55
Message-ID: 21798.1376330215@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
>> The problem is that I don't know of any way to detect eof on a socket
>> other than trying to read from it (or calling poll or select).

> Do we know how inefficient it is, compared to the baseline work done
> by CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() and its affiliated machinery?

CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() is about two instructions (test a global variable
and branch) in the normal case with nothing to do. Don't even think of
putting a kernel call into it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2013-08-12 18:07:16 Re: pg_dump and schema names
Previous Message Tom Lane 2013-08-12 17:55:08 Re: [BUGS] BUG #8335: trim() un-document behaviour