Re: Can we get rid of TerminateThread() in pg_dump?
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>
Cc: Bryan Green <dbryan.green@gmail.com>,
pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
Date: 2026-07-06T21:23:42Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 07/07/2026 00:11, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 05/07/2026 08:03, Thomas Munro wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 4, 2026 at 11:15 PM Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl> >> wrote: >>> On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 at 02:51, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> We don't actually care about the threads >>>> themselves, and it doesn't seem that great if we have to introduce an >>>> IPC ping-pong of some kind with each thread. >>> >>> Agreed. But I do agree with Heikki that swapping out stderr seems pretty >>> hacky. At the very least because now the main thread cannot write to >>> stderr either anymore (which is why you removed the "terminated by user" >>> write I guess). >>> >>> How about instead we do something like the attached? >> >> That's definitely nicer, if we know that all potential error logging >> caused by cancellation happens in a context that can check the flag. > > +1, much nicer! > >> I didn't even look into that, because I was deliberately trying to >> avoid needing atomics from here, because I need this to work on Unix >> too, and I didn't want to open too many cans of worms at the same >> time. Hence the appeal of a simple async-signal-safe system call that >> has the right concurrency properties already and works also on Windows >> without a separate code path. But... reaching for the can opener... >> >> 1. If we're ready to drop VS < 2022 and GCC < 4.9, we could just use >> <stdatomic.h> directly in frontend code (independently of the project >> to use it in the backend). >> 2. If we're not ready yet we could make "port/atomics.h" or selected >> parts of it frontend-allowed. >> 3. Maybe all we really need for this case is memory barriers, and we >> could move those out to a frontend-allowed header. > > To be honest, I didn't realize we didn't allow "port/atomics.h" in > frontend code. I think spinlock-simulated 64-bit atomics is the only > thing that wouldn't just work. In this case, though, I think all we need is a "volatile sigatomic_t" flag. Sending the query cancellation over the network surely acts as a full compiler and memory barrier in the cancelling thread. And similarly receiving the error message from the network acts as a full barrier in the other threads that might receive the cancellation error from the backend. - Heikki
Commits
-
Redesign handling of SIGTERM/control-C in parallel pg_dump/pg_restore.
- e652273e0735 9.6.0 cited