Hi, On 2019-07-10 15:31:11 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > In re-reading this, I notice there are a lot of references to Intterrupt > (with two t). I'm guessing this is just a spelling error, and not something > that actually conveys some meaning?
Just a spelling error. I think I wrote the patch in a night after pgconf.eu, to allow you to quickly make progress :P > Can you elaborate on what you mean with: > + /* XXX: need a more principled approach here */ > Is that the thing you refer to above about "checksum internals"? I think I didn't actually mean "checksum" but instead "checkpoint". It does bother me that we have an operation as long-running as BufferSync() commonly is, without a proper way to accept event. There's a hack for doing something similar-ish in CheckpointWriteDelay(), for absorbing fsync requests, but it doesn't trigger for checkpoints not done in checkpointer, nor is it really extensible. > Also in checking we figured it'd be nice to have a wait event for this, > since a process can potentially get stuck in an infinite loop waiting for > some other process if it's misbehaving. Kind of like the attached? Yea, that makes sense. Greetings, Andres Freund
