| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Borodin <amborodin(at)acm(dot)org>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: background sessions |
| Date: | 2017-03-14 23:44:34 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobBD7ExfwXzogXkiR9fHv1EeZjcLRn5OipSr5L5+jpJQw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-03-15 00:06:57 | Re: improve comments of snapbuild.c |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-03-14 23:40:16 | Re: WIP: Faster Expression Processing v4 |