| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Is RecoveryConflictInterrupt() entirely safe in a signal handler? |
| Date: | 2022-06-22 02:09:08 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKG+kHaAB2q_Ha8fVFh-4wFR_cTpmYLgesk_9bz+4MffYnw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 1:04 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> With the patch, we should always have QueryCancelPending set to false,
> as long as there are no QueryCancelHoldoffCount. Perhaps an extra
> assertion for QueryCancelPending could be added at the beginning of
> ProcessRecoveryConflictInterrupts(), in combination of the one already
> present for InterruptHoldoffCount. I agree that's a minor point,
> though.
But QueryCancelPending can be set to true at any time by
StatementCancelHandler(), if we receive SIGINT.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-06-22 02:33:01 | Re: Is RecoveryConflictInterrupt() entirely safe in a signal handler? |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-06-22 01:56:26 | Re: amcheck is using a wrong macro to check compressed-ness |