Re: "stuck spinlock"

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>
Subject: Re: "stuck spinlock"
Date: 2013-12-13 15:30:48
Message-ID: 9157.1386948648@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:
> 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 ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2013-12-13 15:37:24 Re: "stuck spinlock"
Previous Message Andres Freund 2013-12-13 15:24:42 Re: "stuck spinlock"