On 14 October 2016 16:22:12 EEST, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> writes: >> On 10/14/2016 04:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I wrote: >>>> Py_AddPendingCall is safe to call from a signal handler? That >would >>>> be ... quite remarkable. > >> Yes, I believe it is. > >> >https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/4b71e63b0616aa2a44c9b13675e4c8e3c0157481/Python/ceval.c#L422 > >I don't know whether to laugh or cry, but that code is a joke. Just >silently fail if you can't get the lock?
Heh, ok, let me rephrase: I believe it's *intended* to be callable from a signal handler :). Whether it actually works is another question. Perhaps there's some mitigating conditions there, I don't know. For our use case, it's actually not too bad if Py_AddPendingCall gives up and does nothing. Then the python function will simply not be interrupted until next SPI call, which is the current situation anyway. - Heikki -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
