On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.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? -- 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
