"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> 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. > > Maybe I missed something, but I thought he was just proposing some > macro syntactic sugar over the same code that I described.
No, I meant the earlier patch which you rejected with the flag in MyProc. I realize there were other issues but the initial concern was that it wouldn't respond promptly because it would wait for CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS. But if sigterm was never handled except at a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS then that was never a factor. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's Slony Replication support! -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
