On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 3:05 AM, Etsuro Fujita
<fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> What do you think? This open item's seven-day deadline has passed. It
>> would
>> help keep things moving to know whether you consider your latest patch
>> optimal
>> or whether you wish to change it the way Michael described.
>
> I wish to change it that way because it not only avoids the duplicate but
> fixes a bug in the previous patch that I overlooked that there is a race
> condition if a signal arrives just before entering the CheckSocket.
>
> Attached is an updated version of the patch.
The comment just before the second hunk in the patch says:
* We don't use a PG_TRY block here, so be careful not to throw error
* without releasing the PGresult.
But the patch adds a whole bunch of new things there that seem like
they can error out, like CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(), for example. Isn't
that a problem?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
