> I think we'd be lots better off to abandon the notion that we can exit > directly from the SIGTERM interrupt handler, and instead treat SIGTERM > the same way we treat QueryCancel: set a flag that is inspected at > specific places where we know we are in a good state. > > Comments? This will be much cleaner. Vadim
- [HACKERS] SIGTERM -> elog(FATAL) -> proc_exit() is pr... Tom Lane
- RE: [HACKERS] SIGTERM -> elog(FATAL) -> proc_exi... Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] SIGTERM -> elog(FATAL) -> proc... Tom Lane
- RE: [HACKERS] SIGTERM -> elog(FATAL) -> ... Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] SIGTERM -> elog(FATAL) -&... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] SIGTERM -> elog(FATA... Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] SIGTERM -> elog(... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] SIGTERM -> e... Hiroshi Inoue
- RE: [HACKERS] SIGTERM -> elog(FATAL) -> proc_exi... Mikheev, Vadim
- RE: [HACKERS] SIGTERM -> elog(FATAL) -> proc_exi... Mikheev, Vadim
- RE: [HACKERS] SIGTERM -> elog(FATAL) -> proc_exi... Mikheev, Vadim
- RE: [HACKERS] SIGTERM -> elog(FATAL) -> proc_exi... Mikheev, Vadim
- RE: [HACKERS] SIGTERM -> elog(FATAL) -> proc_exi... Mikheev, Vadim