On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 06:59:10AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 6:46 AM Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 06:28:38AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > Hm, but I caused a crash *without* adding CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS, just > > > > kill+sleep. The kill() could come from running pg_cancel_backend(). > > > > And the > > > > sleep() just encourages a context switch, which can happen at any time. > > > > > > pg_sleep internally uses CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() due to which it would > > > have accepted the signal sent via pg_cancel_backend(). Can you try > > > your scenario by temporarily removing CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS from > > > pg_sleep() or maybe better by using OS Sleep call? > > > > Ah, that explains it. Right, I'm not able to induce a crash with usleep(). > > > > Do you want me to resend a patch without that change ? I feel like > > continuing > > to trade patches is more likely to introduce new errors or lose someone > > else's > > changes than to make much progress. The patch has been through enough > > iterations and it's very easy to miss an issue if I try to eyeball it. > > I can do it but we have to agree on the other two points (a) I still > feel that switching to the truncate phase should be done at the place > from where we are calling lazy_truncate_heap and (b) > lazy_cleanup_index should switch back the error phase after calling > index_vacuum_cleanup. I have explained my reasoning for these points > a few emails back.
I have no objection to either. It was intuitive to me to do it how I originally wrote it but I'm not wedded to it. -- Justin
