| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Thoughts about bug #3883 |
| Date: | 2008-01-25 20:52:28 |
| Message-ID: | 87abmt631v.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> The simplest fix seems to be to invent an additional flag variable
> "signalAwaited" which is set/cleared by ProcWaitForSignal and checked by
> LockWaitCancel. This would make cancelling out of a ProcWaitForSignal call
> exactly analogous to cancelling out of a heavyweight-lock acquisition.
Is that the flag that is an assertion that no cleanup is needed? Or is that
something else?
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's 24x7 Postgres support!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-01-25 20:58:43 | Re: Proposal: Integrity check |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-25 20:23:58 | Re: Proposal: Integrity check |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-25 21:16:25 | Re: Thoughts about bug #3883 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-25 18:49:54 | Re: Thoughts about bug #3883 |