Hi, On 2022-07-04 13:07:50 +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2022-Jul-01, Andres Freund wrote: > > > On 2022-07-01 19:55:16 +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > On 2022-Jul-01, Andres Freund wrote: > > > > > What is the reason for the || ProcDiePending || QueryCancelPending bit? > > > > What > > > > if there's dsm operations intentionally done while QueryCancelPending? > > > > > > That mirrors the test for the other block in that function, which was > > > added by 63efab4ca139, whose commit message explains: > > > That whole approach seems quite wrong to me. At the absolute very least the > > code needs to check if interrupts are being processed in the current context > > before just giving up due to ProcDiePending || QueryCancelPending. > > For the time being, I can just push the addition of the EINTR retry > without testing ProcDiePending || QueryCancelPending.
I think we'd be better off disabling at least some signals during dsm_impl_posix_resize(). I'm afraid we'll otherwise just find another variation of these problems. I haven't checked the source of ftruncate, but what Thomas dug up for fallocate makes it pretty clear that our current approach of just retrying again and again isn't good enough. It's a bit more obvious that it's a problem for fallocate, but I don't think it's worth having different solutions for the two. Greetings, Andres Freund
