From: | Jessica Perry Hekman <jphekman(at)dynamicdiagrams(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: timeout implementation issues |
Date: | 2002-03-30 19:20:19 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.21.0203301416580.2658-100000@atalanta.dynamicdiagrams.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Why would this be any different from a cancel-signal-instigated abort?
> You'd be reporting elog(ERROR) in any case.
If I understand the code correctly, in the case of a cancel signal, the
driver sends the signal and then assumes that the backend has accepted it
and cancelled; the back end does not report back. In this case, the driver
would not be sending a signal, so it would not know that the process had
reached the timeout and stopped (and it needs to know that). What we
*could* do is have *both* the driver and the backend run timers and both
stop when the timeout is reached. This seems like a solution just begging
to produce ugly bugs, though -- and if we have to implement such a wait in
the driver, we may as well implement the whole thing in the driver and
just have it send a cancel signal when it times out.
Or am I misunderstanding the situation?
j
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jessica Perry Hekman | 2002-03-30 19:31:34 | Re: timeout implementation issues |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2002-03-30 18:36:48 | Re: Posix AIO in new Red Hat Linux |