On 2015-12-03 10:02:18 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-pgsql@xxxxxx> writes: > > Can those signals be safely ignored? Just blocking them (so that they > > are delivered after the UDF finishes) might be safer. But even that may > > be a problem: If the UDF then executes some SQL, could that rely on > > signals being delivered? I have no idea. > > The minute you start fooling with a backend's signal behavior, we're > going to politely refuse to support whatever breakage you run into. As I understood Jim he was talking about possible changes to postgresql to shield UDFs from those signals, not something the author of a UDF should do. > We aren't sending those signals just for amusement's sake. Right. That's why I was sceptical whether those signals could be ignored. I wouldn't have thought so, but Jim clearly knows a lot more about the inner workings of postgresql than I do (which is easy - I know almost nothing) and maybe he knows of a way (something like "we can ignore signals while executing the UDF and just assume that we missed at least one signal and call the magic synchronize state function afterwards") hp -- _ | Peter J. Holzer | I want to forget all about both belts and |_|_) | | suspenders; instead, I want to buy pants | | | hjp@xxxxxx | that actually fit. __/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- http://noncombatant.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
