Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Cc: Marc Cousin <cousinmarc(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework
Date: 2012-07-04 15:20:48
Message-ID: 1341415105-sup-6185@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Excerpts from Boszormenyi Zoltan's message of mié jul 04 06:32:46 -0400 2012:
> 2012-07-04 12:09 keltezéssel, Boszormenyi Zoltan írta:

> > You just broke initdb with this cleanup. :-)

Ouch.

> > initdb starts postgres --single, that doesn't do BackendInitialize(),
> > only PostgresMain(). So, you need InitializeTimeouts() before
> > the RegisterTimeout() calls in PostgresMain and the elog(PANIC)
> > must not be in InitializeTimeouts() if called twice.
>
> Attached is the fix for this problem. PostgresMain() has a new
> argument: bool single_user. This way, InitializeTimeouts() can
> keep its elog(PANIC) if called twice and "postgres --single"
> doesn't fail its Assert() in RegisterTimeout().

Hmm. Maybe it's better to leave InitializeTimeouts to be called twice
after all. The fix seems a lot uglier than the disease it's curing.

--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2012-07-04 15:25:28 Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2012-07-04 15:17:52 Re: pgfoundry references in docs