Re: killing pg_dump leaves backend process - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: killing pg_dump leaves backend process
Date
Msg-id 21798.1376330215@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: killing pg_dump leaves backend process  (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: killing pg_dump leaves backend process  (Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>)
List pgsql-hackers
Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> wrote:
>> The problem is that I don't know of any way to detect eof on a socket
>> other than trying to read from it (or calling poll or select).

> Do we know how inefficient it is, compared to the baseline work done
> by CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() and its affiliated machinery?

CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() is about two instructions (test a global variable
and branch) in the normal case with nothing to do.  Don't even think of
putting a kernel call into it.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #8335: trim() un-document behaviour
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump and schema names