Re: "stuck spinlock" - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: "stuck spinlock"
Date
Msg-id 22510.1386952004@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: "stuck spinlock"  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: "stuck spinlock"
Re: "stuck spinlock"
List pgsql-hackers
On closer inspection, I'm thinking that actually it'd be a good idea if
handle_sig_alarm did what we do in, for example, HandleCatchupInterrupt:
it should save, clear, and restore ImmediateInterruptOK, so as to make
the world safe for timeout handlers to do things that might include a
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS.

And while we're on the subject ... isn't bgworker_die() utterly and
completely broken?  That unconditional elog(FATAL) means that no process
using that handler can do anything remotely interesting, like say touch
shared memory.

I didn't find any other similar hazards in a quick look through all our
signal handlers.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: "stuck spinlock"
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: "stuck spinlock"