From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SIGTERM -> elog(FATAL) -> proc_exit() is probably a bad idea |
Date: | 2001-01-15 01:23:27 |
Message-ID: | 3A62510F.F6DECF88@tpf.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hmm, I've seen neither my posting nor your reply
on hackers ML.
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> >> Why? What difference do you see in the nature of the critical sections?
> >> They all look the same to me: hold off cancel/die response.
>
> > I've thought that the main purpose of CRIT_SECTION is to
> > force redo recovery for any errors during the CRIT_SECTION
> > to complete the critical operation e.g. bt_split().
>
> How could it force redo?
Doesn't proc_exit(non-zero) force shuttdown recovery ?
AFAIK, Postgres doesn't have a rollback recovery
functionality yet.
> Rollback, maybe, but that should happen
> anyway.
>
> > Note that elog(ERROR/FATAL) is changed to elog(STOP) if Critical
> > SectionCount > 0.
>
> Not in current sources ;-).
>
Oh you removed the code 20 hours ago. AFAIK, the (equivalent)
code has lived there from the first appearance of CRIT_SECTION.
Is there any reason to remove the code ?
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2001-01-15 01:37:07 | RE: primary keys |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-01-15 00:55:51 | Re: Must implement PQnotifyFree() |