| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Richard Poole <richard(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: stray SIGALRM |
| Date: | 2013-06-15 15:29:45 |
| Message-ID: | 7418.1371310185@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:
> On 2013-06-15 10:45:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> On reflection though, we *do* need to make them cope, because even
>> without lazy SIGALRM disable, any such place is still at risk. We
>> surely must allow for the possibility of SIGHUP arriving at any instant,
>> for example.
> All signal handlers we register, including SIGHUP, but the one for
> SIGALRM set SA_RESTART... I wonder if we can rejigger things so we don't
> need that? I am not sure if there's still a reason for that decision
> inside the backend.
Hmm. Personally I'd rather go in the other direction:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/12819.1183306286@sss.pgh.pa.us
but maybe the path of least resistance is to set SA_RESTART for SIGALRM
too. Given our current usage of it, there seems no worse harm in
allowing kernel calls to restart after a SIGALRM than any other signal.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-06-15 15:33:02 | Re: [RFC] Minmax indexes |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-06-15 15:15:06 | Re: [RFC] Minmax indexes |