Re: pg_terminate_backend() issues

"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> 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!