subject:"\[HACKERS\] HandleParallelMessages contains CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS\?"

Re: [HACKERS] HandleParallelMessages contains CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS?

2016-08-02 Thread Tom Lane

I wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: >> I notice you just removed the CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in >> HandleParallelMessages(). Did you notice that HandleParallelMessages >> calls shm_mq_receive(), which calls shm_mq_receive_bytes(), which >> contains a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS()

Re: [HACKERS] HandleParallelMessages contains CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS?

2016-08-01 Thread Tom Lane

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> $SUBJECT seems like a pretty bad idea, because it implies a recursive >> entry to ProcessInterrupts and thence to HandleParallelMessages itself. >> By what reasoning is that call necessary where it's placed? > I notice you

Re: [HACKERS] HandleParallelMessages contains CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS?

2016-08-01 Thread Alvaro Herrera

Tom Lane wrote: > $SUBJECT seems like a pretty bad idea, because it implies a recursive > entry to ProcessInterrupts and thence to HandleParallelMessages itself. > By what reasoning is that call necessary where it's placed? I notice you just removed the CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in

[HACKERS] HandleParallelMessages contains CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS?

2016-08-01 Thread Tom Lane

$SUBJECT seems like a pretty bad idea, because it implies a recursive entry to ProcessInterrupts and thence to HandleParallelMessages itself. By what reasoning is that call necessary where it's placed? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list