Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> > I think the much more significant change is the following
> > one not the above one.
>
> Well, yes; the "above" change was just a last-gasp attempt to make the
> old scheme work, whereas the "following" change introduced the new
> scheme.
As far as I see, the introduction of the ImmediateInterruptOK
flag made HOLD/RESUME_INTERRUPTS scheme pretty meaningless.
Does 'die' interrupts still really need HOLD/RESUME_INTERRUPTS
scheme ? If 'die' interrupts are only for normal shutdown,
even LockWaitCancel() isn't needed.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
