| From: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Time limit for a process to hold Content lock in Buffer Cache |
| Date: | 2013-05-23 15:43:59 |
| Message-ID: | CAOeZVidjUr62o5bge+O6DS8PYEFagC_wcw1KCXZWKN_FxFo2=w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> A little bit --- the timeout won't actually kill the query until the
> next time control reaches a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS macro that's not inside
> a critical section. We've had issues in the past with particular code
> paths that failed to include such a check in a long-running loop, and
> there might still be some left. But by and large, it won't take very
> long for the query to notice the interrupt.
Right.I believe this is part of the standard way in which we handle
interrupts,right? Making sure that we cancel a query when the backend
is in a state to do so,not when the interrupt actually comes in,right?
Regards,
Atri
--
Regards,
Atri
l'apprenant
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2013-05-23 15:47:01 | Re: Time limit for a process to hold Content lock in Buffer Cache |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-05-23 15:39:22 | Re: Time limit for a process to hold Content lock in Buffer Cache |