On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 3:31 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Very often strategy can be recheck of parent process in some waiting > cycles. It should not to impact performance.
I think that's going to be hard to arrange, and I think it isn't necessary. If the leader wants to arrange for the worker to die when it exits, it can use TerminateBackgroundWorker() from a PG_ENSURE_ERROR_CLEANUP block or on_shmem_exit hook. > I afraid so some waiting times in bg process can be high probable with this > patch - and then is probable so somebody use pg_terminate_backend. This > situation should not to finish by server restart. 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. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
