On 2013-12-13 09:52:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > Tom, could this be caused by c357be2cd9434c70904d871d9b96828b31a50cc5? > > Specifically the added CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() in handle_sig_alarm()? > > ISTM nothing is preventing us from jumping out of code holding a > > spinlock? > > Hm ... what should stop it is that ImmediateInterruptOK wouldn't be > set while we're messing with any spinlocks. Except that ProcessInterrupts > doesn't check that gating condition :-(.
It really can't, right? Otherwise explicit CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS()s in normal code wouldn't do much anymore since ImmediateInterruptOK is so seldomly set. The control flow around signal handling always drives me crazy. > I think you're probably right: > what should be in the interrupt handler is something like > "if (ImmediateInterruptOK) CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();" Yea, that sounds right. Or just don't set process interrupts there, it doesn't seem to be required for correctness? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
