On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 8:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Kapila writes:
>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I believe this is wrong and the CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS needs to be before
>>> or after the two latch operations. As-is, if the reason somebody set
>>> our latch was to get
Amit Kapila writes:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I believe this is wrong and the CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS needs to be before
>> or after the two latch operations. As-is, if the reason somebody set
>> our latch was to get us to notice that a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS condition
>> h
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Both shm_mq.c and nodeGather.c contain instances of this coding pattern:
>
> WaitLatch(MyLatch, WL_LATCH_SET, 0);
> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
> ResetLatch(MyLatch);
>
> I believe this is wrong and the CHECK_FOR_INT
