| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: "stuck spinlock" |
| Date: | 2013-12-13 15:37:24 |
| Message-ID: | 20131213153724.GM29402@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-12-13 10:30:48 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On 2013-12-13 09:52:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think you're probably right:
> >> what should be in the interrupt handler is something like
> >> "if (ImmediateInterruptOK) CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();"
>
> > Yea, that sounds right. Or just don't set process interrupts there, it
> > doesn't seem to be required for correctness?
>
> It is if we need to break out of a wait-for-lock ...
Right, that uses MyProc->sem and not MyProc->procLatch...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-12-13 16:26:44 | Re: "stuck spinlock" |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-12-13 15:30:48 | Re: "stuck spinlock" |