On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Shulgin, Oleksandr <oleksandr.shul...@zalando.de> wrote: > This is not a change of the direction, but rather of the approach. Hitting > a process with a signal and hoping it will produce a meaningful response in > all circumstances without disrupting its current task was way too naive.
I think that's exactly right. It's not safe to do much anything from a signal handler, and while ProcessInterrupts() is a very substantially safer, the set of things that can be safely done there is still awfully restricted. You have to cope with the fact that the function you just interrupted may be doing anything at all, and if you change anything before returning, you may knock over the apple cart. Just as bad, the state you inherit may not be very sane: we call ProcessInterrupts() from LOTS of places and there is absolutely no guarantee that every one of those places has the data structures that you need to run EXPLAIN ANALYZE in a sane state. I haven't looked at the new patch specifically so I don't have an opinion on that at this time. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
