On 11/12/09, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com> writes:
> > You talked about blocking in quickdie(), but you'd need
> > to block in elog().
>
> I'm not really particularly worried about that case. By that logic,
> we could not use quickdie at all, because any part of the system
> might be doing something that wouldn't survive being interrupted.
Not really - we'd need to care only about parts that quickdie()
(or any other signal handler) wants to use. Which basically means
elog() only.
OK, full elog() is a beast, but why would SIGQUIT handler need full
elog()? How about we export minimal log-writing function and make
that signal-safe - that is, drop message if already active. This
will excange potential crash/deadlock with lost msg which seems
slightly better behaviour.
--
marko
