On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 13:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > Can you explain further what you meant by "don't disable manual
> > cancels".
>
> I meant that pg_cancel_backend() should still work on autovac workers,
> contrary to Alvaro's suggestion that autovac workers should sometimes
> ignore SIGINT.
>
> Basically the implementation vision I have is that the SIGINT catcher in
> an autovac worker should remain stupid, and any intelligence involved
> should be on the side where we're deciding whether to send a signal or
> not. This probably does involve exposing more state in PGPROC but I see
> nothing much wrong with that. (It might be time to merge inVacuum,
> isAutovacuum, and the additional state into a bitwise vacuumFlags field.)
Gotcha
-- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
