Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Tom, could this be caused by c357be2cd9434c70904d871d9b96828b31a50cc5?
> Specifically the added CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() in handle_sig_alarm()?
> ISTM nothing is preventing us from jumping out of code holding a
> spinlock?
Hm ... what should stop it is that ImmediateInterruptOK wouldn't be
set while we're messing with any spinlocks. Except that ProcessInterrupts
doesn't check that gating condition :-(. I think you're probably right:
what should be in the interrupt handler is something like
"if (ImmediateInterruptOK) CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();"
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
