Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think changing the outer "for(;;)" to "while (!got_SIGTERM)" would
>> be a much safer fix.
> Ah, yeah. I was thinking in changing PG_exception_stack once shutdown
> was requested, but this is much simpler.
Your proposed patch seems to be doing both of those, which is probably
unnecessary. I don't object to the SIGHUP test and goto in the error
path, but I'd put it a lot further down, like after the existing
RESUME_INTERRUPTS. I doubt it's a good idea to skip the transaction
cleanup steps.
regards, tom lane