On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 6:46 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 03:08:34PM +0200, Chris Travers wrote: > > So here's a small patch. I will add it for the next commit fest unless > > anyone has any reason I shouldn't. > > - return InterruptPending && (QueryCancelPending || ProcDiePending); > + return PENDING_INTERRUPT_LEVEL() >= QUERY_CANCEL; > > This is pretty similar to lock levels, where it is pretty hard to put a > strict monotone hierarchy when it comes to such interruptions. I understand how lock levels don't fit a simple hierarchy but at least when it comes to what is going to be aborted on a signal, I am having trouble understanding the problem here. Does anyone have any search terms I should look into the archives regarding this issue? I will assume this patch will be rejected then. > The new > code does not seem like an improvment either, as for example in the code > mentioned above, you know directly what are the actions involved, which > is not the case with the new code style. > The initial motivation for this patch was that it felt a little bit odd to be using global boolean flags for this sort of approach and I was concerned that if this approach proliferated it might cause problems later. As far as I know my previous patch was the second use of the current pattern. So one thing I wonder is if there are ways where abstracting this would make more sense. > -- > Michael > -- Best Regards, Chris Travers Head of Database Tel: +49 162 9037 210 | Skype: einhverfr | www.adjust.com Saarbrücker Straße 37a, 10405 Berlin
