Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> elog(FATAL) is *certainly* not a better idea. I think there's really
>> nothing that can be done, you just have to silently ignore the error.
> Hmm.. some functions called by a signal handler use elog(FATAL), e.g.,
> RecoveryConflictInterrupt() do that when unknown conflict mode is given
> as an argument. Are these calls unsafe, too?
[ shrug... ] I stated before that the Hot Standby patch is doing
utterly unsafe things in signal handlers. Simon rejected that.
I am waiting for irrefutable evidence to emerge from the field
(and am very confident that it will be forthcoming...) before
I argue with him further. Meanwhile, I'm not going to accept anything
unsafe in a core facility like this patch is going to be.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
