Re: [HACKERS] background sessions
| От | Pavel Stehule |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] background sessions |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAFj8pRD=cjb+LCR3QzYaHYzwN1kCP1j3NeyW4BTrMD23rSGExA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] background sessions (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] background sessions
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
2017-03-15 0:44 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>:
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?
I don't understand - CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS called from executor implicitly.
Pavel
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: