Fujii Masao wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 11:39 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
To set or clear the flag from PGPROC, to send or handle a signal, we have
to acquire ProcArrayLock. Is that safe to do in a signal handler?
No. If it's trying to do that then it's broken. In fact, if it's
trying to do much of anything beyond setting a "volatile" flag variable
in a signal handler, it's broken --- unless there are special provisions
to limit where the signal trap can occur, which would be pretty much
unacceptable for a multiplexed-signal implementation.
Ok, I was afraid so.
I think we'll need to replace the proposed bitmask with an array of
sig_atomic_t flags then, and do without locking.
Thanks! I updated the patch so (based on signal_handling_v2-heikki-1.patch).
Thank you. Looks good to me, committed with minor changes.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
