"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> [We would also have to block SIGTERM around the second cancel_shmem_exit and >> cleanup_routine, no? Or if it's idempotent (actually, wouldn't it have to >> be?) >> run them in the reverse order.] > > No, we wouldn't, because a SIGTERM can only actually fire at a > CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() call. You'd just need to be sure there wasn't > one in the cleanup code.
Wait, huh? In that case I don't see what advantage any of this has over Bruce's patch. And his approach seemed a lot more robust. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production Tuning -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
