On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 6:46 AM Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 06:28:38AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > Hm, but I caused a crash *without* adding CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS, just > > > kill+sleep. The kill() could come from running pg_cancel_backend(). And > > > the > > > sleep() just encourages a context switch, which can happen at any time. > > > > pg_sleep internally uses CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() due to which it would > > have accepted the signal sent via pg_cancel_backend(). Can you try > > your scenario by temporarily removing CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS from > > pg_sleep() or maybe better by using OS Sleep call? > > Ah, that explains it. Right, I'm not able to induce a crash with usleep(). > > Do you want me to resend a patch without that change ? I feel like continuing > to trade patches is more likely to introduce new errors or lose someone else's > changes than to make much progress. The patch has been through enough > iterations and it's very easy to miss an issue if I try to eyeball it. >
I can do it but we have to agree on the other two points (a) I still feel that switching to the truncate phase should be done at the place from where we are calling lazy_truncate_heap and (b) lazy_cleanup_index should switch back the error phase after calling index_vacuum_cleanup. I have explained my reasoning for these points a few emails back. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
