Re: timeout implementation issues

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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