Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56])
	by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps
 (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
	(Exim 4.92)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-hackers-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1kGTCG-0007u3-WB
	for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 20:29:33 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org)
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-hackers-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1kGTCF-0004ch-Ln
	for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 20:29:31 +0000
Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
	(Exim 4.92)
	(envelope-from <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
	id 1kGTCF-0004ca-FU
	for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 20:29:31 +0000
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130])
	by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
	(Exim 4.92)
	(envelope-from <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
	id 1kGTCC-0007F3-4m
	for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 20:29:30 +0000
Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 08AKTORm264217;
	Thu, 10 Sep 2020 16:29:24 -0400
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: SIGQUIT handling, redux
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+Tgmobn6yDe69m_R8n-nrFjxsFAjwdOr5eiPVdd_Qx7+g8P=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1850884.1599601164@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <148145.1599703626@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoZc6QQoFeWJUj0c5e7bqhMaq=LnwTSFtUin-euz-u1HZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <251830.1599757015@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+Tgmobn6yDe69m_R8n-nrFjxsFAjwdOr5eiPVdd_Qx7+g8P=g@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Thu, 10 Sep 2020 14:26:59 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <264215.1599769763.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 16:29:23 -0400
Message-ID: <264216.1599769763@sss.pgh.pa.us>
List-Id: <pgsql-hackers.lists.postgresql.org>
List-Help: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Archive: <https://www.postgresql.org/list/pgsql-hackers>
Precedence: bulk

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:56 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Also, man that CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() looks like trouble.
>> Could we take that out?

> Maybe I'm missing something, but why wouldn't that be a horrible idea?
> We do not want to have long waits where we refuse to respond to
> interrupts.

It might be appropriate for some of the callers to do it.  But I don't
see any great argument why ProcWaitForSignal itself has to do it.

			regards, tom lane