| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: infinite loop in _bt_getstackbuf |
| Date: | 2014-10-30 19:52:01 |
| Message-ID: | 8287.1414698721@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> A colleague at EnterpriseDB today ran into a situation on PostgreSQL
>> 9.3.5 where the server went into an infinite loop while attempting a
>> VACUUM FREEZE; it couldn't escape _bt_getstackbuf(), and it couldn't
>> be killed with ^C. I think we should add a check for interrupts into
>> that loop somewhere;
> Our design principle in this area is that all loops should have
> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() calls somewhere, so that even if data is horribly
> corrupted you can get out of it.
FWIW, I concur with Alvaro that adding a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() needn't
require much discussion. Given the lack of prior complaints about this
loop, I'm not sure I see the need to work harder than that; corruption
of this sort must be quite rare.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-10-30 20:59:45 | Re: alter user/role CURRENT_USER |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-10-30 19:19:09 | Re: WAL format and API changes (9.5) |