From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations |
Date: | 2014-07-26 17:58:38 |
Message-ID: | 31753.1406397518@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Wouldn't it be better to move the catchup interrupt processing out of
> the signal handler? For normal backends we only enable when reading from
> the client and DoingCommandRead is set. How about setting a variable in
> the signal handler and doing the actual catchup processing after the
> recv() returned EINTR?
Only it won't. See SA_RESTART. I think turning that off is a nonstarter,
as per previous discussions.
> That'd require either renegging on SA_RESTART or
> using WaitLatchOrSocket() and nonblocking send/recv.
Yeah, I was wondering about using WaitLatchOrSocket for client I/O too.
We already have a hook that lets us do the actual recv even when using
OpenSSL, and in principle that function could do interrupt-service-like
functions if it got kicked off the recv().
Anything in this line is going to be a bigger change than I'd want to
back-patch, though. Are we OK with not fixing the problem in the back
branches? Given the shortage of field complaints, that might be all
right.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-07-26 18:14:15 | Re: building pdfs |
Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2014-07-26 17:37:51 | Re: parametric block size? |