At Tue, 24 Sep 2019 12:46:19 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote in
<20190924.124619.248088532.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
> > clear about that. In short, as a matter of safety I'd like to think
> > that what you are suggesting is rather acceptable (aka hold interrupts
> > before the WAL record is written and release after the physical
> > truncate), so as truncation avoids failures possible to avoid.
> >
> > Do others have thoughts to share on the matter?
>
> Agreed for the concept, but does the patch work as described? It
> seems that query cancel doesn't fire during the holded-off
> section since no CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() there.
Of course I found no *explicit* ones. But I found one
ereport(DEBUG1 in register_dirty_segment. So it will work at
least for the case where fsync request queue is full.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
