Greg Jaskiewicz wrote:
> On 19 Oct 2011, at 18:28, Florian Pflug wrote:
> > All the other flags which indicate cancellation reasons are set from signal 
> > handers, I believe. We could of course mark as ClientConnectionLostPending 
> > as volatile just to be consistent. Not sure whether that's a good idea, or 
> > not. It might prevent a mistake should we ever add code to detect lost 
> > connections asynchronously (i.e., from somewhere else than pq_flush). And 
> > the cost is probably negligible, because CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS tests for 
> > InterruptPending before calling ProcessInterrupts(), so we only pay the 
> > cost of volatile if there's actually an interrupt pending. But I still 
> > think it's better to add qualifies such a volatile only when really 
> > necessary. A comment about why it *isn't* volatile is probably in order, 
> > though, so I'll add that in the next version of the patch.
> >
> Makes sense.
> I had to ask, because it sticks out. And indeed there is a possibility
> that someone will one day will try to use from signal handler, etc.

A C comment might help there.

  Bruce Momjian  <>

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to