From: | Rainer Tammer <pgsql(at)spg(dot)schulergroup(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: Problem with PostgreSQL 9.2.7 and make check on AIX 7.1 |
Date: | 2014-02-26 08:41:48 |
Message-ID: | 530DA8CC.6060606@spg.schulergroup.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Hello,
So we are getting closer (if I did not instrument the wrond code):
src/backend/tcop/postgres.c
int
PostgresMain(int argc, char *argv[],
const char *dbname,
const char *username)
{
...
if (am_walsender)
WalSndSignals();
else
{
pqsignal(SIGHUP, SigHupHandler); /* set
flag to read config
* file */
----> register handler here <-------------------------------------
pqsignal(SIGINT, StatementCancelHandler);
/* cancel current query */
----> register handler here <-------------------------------------
pqsignal(SIGTERM, die); /* cancel current query and exit */
...
void
StatementCancelHandler(SIGNAL_ARGS)
{
int save_errno = errno;
elog(WARNING, "StatementCancelHandler() - entered");
/*
* Don't joggle the elbow of proc_exit
*/
if (!proc_exit_inprogress)
{
...
This part is never reached. Does this mean that the signal SIGINT got lost?
Or do I search in the wrong place.
Your help is much appreciated.
Bye
Rainer
On 25.02.2014 19:47, Tom Lane wrote:
> Rainer Tammer <pgsql(at)spg(dot)schulergroup(dot)com> writes:
>> The semop() should be interrupted by SIGINT, right?
> Yeah. Note that we're expecting the SIGINT handler to do a longjmp,
> so that it doesn't matter whether or not the semop would choose to
> resume waiting after a signal. But it has to execute the handler.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sergey Burladyan | 2014-02-26 08:58:57 | Re: BUG #9223: plperlu result memory leak |
Previous Message | Rainer Tammer | 2014-02-26 08:24:51 | Re: Problem with PostgreSQL 9.2.7 and make check on AIX 7.1 |