Horton

Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Cc: Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at>, Marc Cousin <cousinmarc@gmail.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <hs@cybertec.at>, Ants Aasma <ants@cybertec.at>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Date: 2012-07-11T21:03:35Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Fix Windows implementation of PGSemaphoreLock.

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mi jul 11 15:47:47 -0400 2012:
>> ... that means we need a pretty consistent scheme for
>> where to call InitializeTimeouts.  But we already have the same issue
>> with respect to on_proc_exit callbacks, so we can just add
>> InitializeTimeouts calls in the same places as on_exit_reset().

> I do agree that InitializeTimeouts is not optimally placed.  We
> discussed this upthread.

> Some of the calls of on_exit_reset() are placed in code that's about to
> die.  Surely we don't need InitializeTimeouts() then.  Maybe we should
> have another routine, say InitializeProcess (noting we already
> InitProcess so maybe some name would be good), that calls both
> on_exit_reset and InitializeTimeouts.

Yeah, I was wondering about that too, but it seems a bit ad-hoc from a
modularity standpoint.  I gave some consideration to the idea of putting
these calls directly into fork_process(), but we'd have to be very sure
that there would never be a case where it was incorrect to do them after
forking.

			regards, tom lane