| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SIGQUIT handling, redux |
| Date: | 2020-09-10 20:29:23 |
| Message-ID: | 264216.1599769763@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:56 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Also, man that CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() looks like trouble.
>> Could we take that out?
> Maybe I'm missing something, but why wouldn't that be a horrible idea?
> We do not want to have long waits where we refuse to respond to
> interrupts.
It might be appropriate for some of the callers to do it. But I don't
see any great argument why ProcWaitForSignal itself has to do it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-09-10 20:31:54 | Re: PG 13 release notes, first draft |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-09-10 20:01:37 | Re: WIP: BRIN multi-range indexes |