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

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: SIGQUIT handling, redux
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmobn6yDe69m_R8n-nrFjxsFAjwdOr5eiPVdd_Qx7+g8P=g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SIGQUIT handling, redux  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: SIGQUIT handling, redux  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
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.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Jameson, Hunter 'James'"
Date:
Subject: Re: Fix for parallel BTree initialization bug
Next
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP: BRIN multi-range indexes