Re: signal handling in plpython
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: signal handling in plpython |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 299C86D7-2DF9-4A70-A055-E7DCCD2F4668@iki.fi обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: signal handling in plpython (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: signal handling in plpython
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 14 October 2016 16:22:12 EEST, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> writes: >> On 10/14/2016 04:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I wrote: >>>> Py_AddPendingCall is safe to call from a signal handler? That >would >>>> be ... quite remarkable. > >> Yes, I believe it is. > >> >https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/4b71e63b0616aa2a44c9b13675e4c8e3c0157481/Python/ceval.c#L422 > >I don't know whether to laugh or cry, but that code is a joke. Just >silently fail if you can't get the lock? Heh, ok, let me rephrase: I believe it's *intended* to be callable from a signal handler :). Whether it actually works isanother question. Perhaps there's some mitigating conditions there, I don't know. For our use case, it's actually not too bad if Py_AddPendingCall gives up and does nothing. Then the python function willsimply not be interrupted until next SPI call, which is the current situation anyway. - Heikki
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: