On Sun, May 8, 2022 at 11:36 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> writes: > > How long can the backend remain unresponsive? I don't think that > > anybody would object to the addition of some CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() in > > areas where it would be efficient to make the shutdown quicker, but > > we need to think carefully about the places where we'd want to add > > these. > > CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS is really quite cheap, just a test-and-branch. > I wouldn't put it in a *very* tight loop, but one test per row > processed while gathering stats is unlikely to be a problem.
+1. If we're finding things stalling that would be fixed by adding CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(), we should generally just add it. In the unlikely event that this causes a performance problem, we can try to figure out some other solution, but not responding to interrupts isn't the right way to economize. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
