| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal for Signal Detection Refactoring |
| Date: | 2018-09-21 04:46:11 |
| Message-ID: | 20180921044611.GH1338@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 03:08:34PM +0200, Chris Travers wrote:
> So here's a small patch. I will add it for the next commit fest unless
> anyone has any reason I shouldn't.
- return InterruptPending && (QueryCancelPending || ProcDiePending);
+ return PENDING_INTERRUPT_LEVEL() >= QUERY_CANCEL;
This is pretty similar to lock levels, where it is pretty hard to put a
strict monotone hierarchy when it comes to such interruptions. The new
code does not seem like an improvment either, as for example in the code
mentioned above, you know directly what are the actions involved, which
is not the case with the new code style.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-09-21 04:52:18 | Re: Proposal for Signal Detection Refactoring |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-09-21 04:43:31 | Re: Strange failure in LWLock on skink in REL9_5_STABLE |