Re: SIGQUIT handling, redux - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: SIGQUIT handling, redux
Date
Msg-id 264216.1599769763@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SIGQUIT handling, redux  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:56 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Also, man that CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() looks like trouble.
>> Could we take that out?

> Maybe I'm missing something, but why wouldn't that be a horrible idea?
> We do not want to have long waits where we refuse to respond to
> interrupts.

It might be appropriate for some of the callers to do it.  But I don't
see any great argument why ProcWaitForSignal itself has to do it.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP: BRIN multi-range indexes
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: PG 13 release notes, first draft