On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > CommitTransaction() calls HOLD_INTERRUPT() and then RESUME_INTERRUPTS(), > which was reasonable before we started waiting for syncrep. The > interrupt does occur *before* we send the message back, but doesn't work > effectively at interrupting the wait in the way you would like. > > If we RESUME_INTERRUPTS() prior to waiting and then HOLD again that > would allow all signals not just SIGTERM. We would need to selectively > reject everything except SIGTERM messages. > > Ideas? > > Alter ProcessInterrupts() to accept an interrupt if ProcDiePending && > WaitingForSyncRep and InterruptHoldoffCount > 0. That looks a little > scary, but looks like it will work.
If shutdown is requested before WaitingForSyncRep is set to TRUE and after HOLD_INTERRUPT() is called, the waiting backends cannot be interrupted. SIGTERM can be sent by pg_terminate_backend(). So we should check whether shutdown is requested before emitting WARNING and closing the connection. If it's not requested yet, I think that it's safe to return the success indication to the client. I think that it's safer to close the connection and terminate the backend after cleaning all the resources. So, as I suggested before, how about doing that in EndCommand()? Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
