Re: Interruptible sleeps (was Re: CommitFest 2009-07: Yay, Kevin! Thanks, reviewers!)
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Interruptible sleeps (was Re: CommitFest 2009-07: Yay, Kevin! Thanks, reviewers!) |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 10392.1283479688@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Interruptible sleeps (was Re: CommitFest 2009-07: Yay, Kevin! Thanks, reviewers!) (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Interruptible sleeps (was Re: CommitFest 2009-07: Yay,
Kevin! Thanks, reviewers!)
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes:
>> + * XXX: Is it safe to elog(ERROR) in a signal handler?
>>
>> No, it isn't.
> We should use elog(FATAL) or check proc_exit_inprogress, instead?
elog(FATAL) is *certainly* not a better idea. I think there's really
nothing that can be done, you just have to silently ignore the error.
BTW, if we retry, there had probably better be a limit on how many times
to retry ...
> + if (errno != EAGAIN && errno != EWOULDBLOCK)
> + {
> + /*
> + * XXX: Is it safe to elog(ERROR) in a signal handler?
> + */
> + elog(ERROR, "write() on self-pipe failed: %m");
> + }
> + if (errno == EINTR)
> + goto retry;
> "errno == EINTR)" seems to be never checked.
Another issue with coding like that is that it supposes elog() won't
change errno.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: