Re: SIGQUIT handling, redux

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SIGQUIT handling, redux
Date: 2020-09-10 18:26:59
Message-ID: CA+Tgmobn6yDe69m_R8n-nrFjxsFAjwdOr5eiPVdd_Qx7+g8P=g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:56 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Also, man that CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() looks like trouble.
> Could we take that out?

Maybe I'm missing something, but why wouldn't that be a horrible idea?
We do not want to have long waits where we refuse to respond to
interrupts.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2020-09-10 18:32:48 Re: WIP: BRIN multi-range indexes
Previous Message Jameson, Hunter 'James' 2020-09-10 18:09:19 Re: Fix for parallel BTree initialization bug