On 2013-12-13 12:19:56 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > Shouldn't the HOLD_INTERRUPTS() in handle_sig_alarm() prevent any > > eventual ProcessInterrupts() in the timeout handlers from doing anything > > harmful? > > Sorry, I misspoke there. The case I'm worried about is doing something > like a wait for lock, which would unconditionally set and then reset > ImmediateInterruptOK.
I sure hope we're not going to introduce more paths that do this, but I am not going to bet on it... I remember trying to understand why the deadlock detector is safe doing as it does when I was all green and was trying to understand the HS patch and it drove me nuts. > BTW, I'm about to go put a HOLD_INTERRUPTS/RESUME_INTERRUPTS into > HandleCatchupInterrupt and HandleNotifyInterrupt too, for essentially the > same reason. Sounds good, both already do a ProcessInterrupts() at their end, so the holdoff shouldn't lead to absorbed interrupts. I wonder what to do about bgworker's bgworker_die()? I don't really see how that can be fixed without breaking the API? 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
