2017-03-15 0:44 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: > 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? >
I don't understand - CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS called from executor implicitly. Pavel > > -- > Robert Haas > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >
