From: | "Fujii Masao" <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Multiplexing SUGUSR1 |
Date: | 2008-12-09 04:33:27 |
Message-ID: | 3f0b79eb0812082033o4dbbfd5dy1c0a605b3dd05e80@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 11:39 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>>>
>>> To set or clear the flag from PGPROC, to send or handle a signal, we have
>>> to acquire ProcArrayLock. Is that safe to do in a signal handler?
>>
>> No. If it's trying to do that then it's broken. In fact, if it's
>> trying to do much of anything beyond setting a "volatile" flag variable
>> in a signal handler, it's broken --- unless there are special provisions
>> to limit where the signal trap can occur, which would be pretty much
>> unacceptable for a multiplexed-signal implementation.
>
> Ok, I was afraid so.
>
> I think we'll need to replace the proposed bitmask with an array of
> sig_atomic_t flags then, and do without locking.
Thanks! I updated the patch so (based on signal_handling_v2-heikki-1.patch).
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
signal_handling_v3-fujii-1.patch | text/x-patch | 19.2 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2008-12-09 06:28:46 | Re: contrib/pg_stat_statements 1202 |
Previous Message | Euler Taveira de Oliveira | 2008-12-09 04:31:05 | operator does not exist: smallint <> smallint[] |