Hi,
On 2026-01-30 15:37:57 +0100, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> I'm now wondering if CheckDeadLockAlert() really needed to have this in
> the first place, or it was just an exercise in paranoia ... it was added
> by commit 6753333f55e1, with the discussion in [1], and it's not clear
> to me that there was any theoretical or experimental evidence that it
> was necessary; the thread didn't discuss it, and the commit message
> doesn't either. Added Andres to CC as committer to this thread, maybe
> he remembers.
I don't remember. But back then way more complicated things were still running
in signal handlers, and some signal handlers were capable of interrupting
other signal handlers. Including doing crazy things like starting transactions
in signal handlers (e.g. to process notify interrupts), which in turn could
clear latches. So there was a lot more potential to stomp on each others work.
WRT the subject of this thread: I hope we aren't just enabling a timer to fire
once a second forever but only when there actually is outstanding work?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
