RE: SIGTERM -> elog(FATAL) -> proc_exit() is probably a bad idea

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Hiroshi Inoue
Тема RE: SIGTERM -> elog(FATAL) -> proc_exit() is probably a bad idea
Дата
Msg-id EKEJJICOHDIEMGPNIFIJCEMODEAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: SIGTERM -> elog(FATAL) -> proc_exit() is probably a bad idea  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: SIGTERM -> elog(FATAL) -> proc_exit() is probably a bad idea  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> 
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> > Isn't it appropriate to call a diffrent macro using a separate 
> > CriticalSectionCount variable in newly added places ?
> 
> Why?  What difference do you see in the nature of the critical sections?
> They all look the same to me: hold off cancel/die response.
>

I've thought that the main purpose of CRIT_SECTION is to
force redo recovery for any errors during the CRIT_SECTION
to complete the critical operation e.g. bt_split(). Note that
elog(ERROR/FATAL) is changed to elog(STOP) if Critical
SectionCount > 0.  Postgres 7.1 stll lacks an undo functionality
and AbortTransaction() does little about rolling back the
transaction. PostgreSQL seems to have to retry the critical
operation by running a redo recovery after killing all backends.

Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: SIGTERM -> elog(FATAL) -> proc_exit() is probably a bad idea
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: SIGTERM -> elog(FATAL) -> proc_exit() is probably a bad idea