Re: [PATCH] Fix for infinite signal loop in parallel scan
От | Oleksii Kliukin |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH] Fix for infinite signal loop in parallel scan |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 13F3E97B-8D19-4385-B4FB-DAF9E9F619EE@hintbits.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] Fix for infinite signal loop in parallel scan (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCH] Fix for infinite signal loop in parallel scan
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> On 18. Sep 2018, at 03:18, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:15 AM Chris Travers <chris.travers@adjust.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 2:59 PM Oleksii Kliukin <alexk@hintbits.com> wrote: >>> With the patch applied, the posix_fallocate loop terminated right away (because >>> of QueryCancelPending flag set to true) and the backend went through the >>> cleanup, showing an ERROR of cancelling due to the conflict with recovery. >>> Without the patch, it looped indefinitely in the dsm_impl_posix_resize, while >>> the startup process were looping forever, trying to send SIGUSR1. > > Thanks for testing! > >>> One thing I’m wondering is whether we could do the same by just blocking SIGUSR1 >>> for the duration of posix_fallocate? >> >> If we were to do that, I would say we should mask all signals we can mask during the call. >> >> I don't have a problem going down that road instead if people think it is better. > > We discussed that when adding posix_fallocate() and decided that > retrying is better: > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170628230458.n5ehizmvhoerr5yq%40alap3.anarazel.de > > Here is a patch that I propose to commit and back-patch to 9.4. I > just wrote a suitable commit message, edited the comments lightly and > fixed some whitespace. Thanks! Apart from the fact that the reviewer's name is “Murat Kabilov” and not “Murak Kabilov” the back-patch looks good to me. Cheers, Oleksii Kliukin
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: