From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: walreceiver is uninterruptible on win32 |
Date: | 2010-04-02 15:40:28 |
Message-ID: | l2p9837222c1004020840n5417588an44b49e3a59a3e286@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 17:26, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 15:33, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Sorry for the delay. The attached patch replaces PQexec() used by dblink
>>> and libpqwalreceiver with pgwin32_PQexec() which is the win32 version of
>>> PQexec().
>>>
>>> pgwin32_PQexec() is provided as the library 'libpqbe.dll', which is created
>>> only on win32. dblink.dll and libpqwalreceiver.dll refer to libpqbe.dll.
>>> Also libpqbe.dll refers to libpq.dll.
>
>> [ assorted objections ]
>
> I disapprove of the whole approach, actually. The right way to fix this
> is to not touch or replace libpq at all, but to change walreceiver to
> use libpq's async-query facilities directly. Instead of PQexec, use
> PQsendQuery and then a loop involving PQisBusy, PQgetResult, etc.
> You've more or less done that loop, but you've put it in the wrong
> place.
Any particular reason not to wrap that in a function? Not called
pgwin32_PQexec() then, but something more generic? And not doing any
#defines to change PQexec, but call that wrapper directly?
> The larger point is that I don't believe this issue exists only on
> Windows. I think we're going to want something like this on all
> platforms, and that implies supporting poll() not just select() for the
> waiting part.
The most important part of the issue doesn't (because PQexec will be
interrupted by a signal), but there may certainly be others.
> The patch also seems confused about whether it's intending to be a
> general-purpose solution or not. You can maybe take some shortcuts
> if it's only going to be for walreceiver, but if you're going to put
> it in dblink it is *not* acceptable to take shortcuts like not
> processing errors completely.
Yeah, good point.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-04-02 15:46:18 | Re: walreceiver is uninterruptible on win32 |
Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2010-04-02 15:36:26 | Re: Proposal: Add JSON support |