Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes: > On 19/08/10 16:38, Tom Lane wrote: >> Considering that pg_usleep is implemented with select, I'm not following >> what you mean by "replace pg_usleep() with select()"?
> Instead of using pg_usleep(), call select() directly, waiting not only > for the timeout, but also for data to arrive on the "self-pipe". The > signal handler writes a byte to the self-pipe, waking up the select(). > That way the select() is interupted by the signal arriving, even if > signals per se don't interrupt it. And it closes the race condition > involved with setting a flag in the signal handler and checking that in > the main loop. Hmm, but couldn't you still do that inside pg_usleep? Signal handlers that do that couldn't know if they were interrupting a sleep per se, so this would have to be a backend-wide convention. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers