| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: Interrupts vs signals |
| Date: | 2024-11-22 21:58:36 |
| Message-ID: | a812d457-8c8d-4435-a71b-4422854f3150@iki.fi |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 19/11/2024 23:02, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 11:09 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Names don't match here. I prefer _CONTINUE. As for the general one,
>> I'm on the fence about INTERRUPT_GENERAL_WAKEUP, since wakeups aren't
>> necessarily involved, but I don't have a specific better idea so I'm
>> not objecting... Perhaps it's more like INTERRUPT_GENERAL_NOTIFY,
>> except that _NOTIFY is already a well known thing, and the procsignal
>> patch introduces INTERRUPT_NOTIFY...
>
> INTERRUPT_GENERAL with no third word isn't out of the question, either.
I like that
--
Heikki Linnakangas
Neon (https://neon.tech)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2024-11-22 22:34:14 | Re: Adding skip scan (including MDAM style range skip scan) to nbtree |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2024-11-22 21:58:16 | Re: Interrupts vs signals |