Re: [HACKERS] background sessions

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't understand.  The only way you'd need a server restart is if a
>> background process wasn't responding to SIGTERM, and that's a bug
>> independent of anything this patch does.  It would be cause by the
>> background process not doing CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() or the moral
>> equivalent regularly.
>
> It is bug, and I don't know if it s this extension bug or general bug.
>
> There is not adequate cleaning after killing.
>
> How can be implemented pg_cancel_backend on background process if there are
> not CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS?

You can't.  But what does that have to do with this patch?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company