I wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> I notice you just removed the CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in
>> HandleParallelMessages(). Did you notice that HandleParallelMessages
>> calls shm_mq_receive(), which calls shm_mq_receive_bytes(), which
>> contains a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() call?
After study, I believe that that CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() is unreachable
given that HandleParallelMessages passes nowait = true. But it's not
unlikely that future changes in shm_mq.c might introduce such calls that
are reachable.
> I wonder whether we should make use of HOLD_INTERRUPTS/RESUME_INTERRUPTS
> to avoid the recursion scenario here.
I concluded that that would be good future-proofing, whether or not it's
strictly necessary today, so I pushed it.
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
