Re: SIGTERM -> elog(FATAL) -> proc_exit() is probably a bad idea

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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()