| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: "stuck spinlock" |
| Date: | 2013-12-13 17:54:09 |
| Message-ID: | 25316.1386957249@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I wonder what to do about bgworker's bgworker_die()? I don't really see
> how that can be fixed without breaking the API?
IMO it should be flushed and bgworkers should use the same die() handler
as every other backend, or else one like the one in worker_spi, which just
sets a flag for testing later. If we try to change the signal handling
contracts, 80% of backend code will be unusable in bgworkers, which is not
where we want to be I think.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-12-13 18:15:51 | Re: "stuck spinlock" |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2013-12-13 17:53:41 | Re: patch: make_timestamp function |