| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(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: | 2017-03-15 10:43:03 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRD=cjb+LCR3QzYaHYzwN1kCP1j3NeyW4BTrMD23rSGExA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2017-03-15 0:44 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> 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?
>
I don't understand - CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS called from executor implicitly.
Pavel
>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Anastasia Lubennikova | 2017-03-15 10:45:39 | Re: Backend crash on non-exclusive backup cancel |
| Previous Message | Yugo Nagata | 2017-03-15 10:09:10 | Re: Report the number of skipped frozen pages by manual VACUUM |