| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: Interrupts vs signals |
| Date: | 2024-11-19 21:02:39 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZESA_RrkPa7odtGAiKFDrmYp0rqZ0vVb_w-U4NFtYwqQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 11:09 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Names don't match here. I prefer _CONTINUE. As for the general one,
> I'm on the fence about INTERRUPT_GENERAL_WAKEUP, since wakeups aren't
> necessarily involved, but I don't have a specific better idea so I'm
> not objecting... Perhaps it's more like INTERRUPT_GENERAL_NOTIFY,
> except that _NOTIFY is already a well known thing, and the procsignal
> patch introduces INTERRUPT_NOTIFY...
INTERRUPT_GENERAL with no third word isn't out of the question, either.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2024-11-19 21:30:00 | Re: proposal: schema variables |
| Previous Message | Michel Pelletier | 2024-11-19 20:52:46 | Re: Using Expanded Objects other than Arrays from plpgsql |