On 2021-04-06 00:08, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On 2021/04/05 21:03, torikoshia wrote:
>> On 2021-04-05 12:59, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> On 2021/04/05 12:20, Zhihong Yu wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for reviewing!
>>
>>>> + * On receipt of this signal, a backend sets the flag in the signal
>>>> + * handler, and then which causes the next CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS()
>>
>>>> I think the 'and then' is not needed:
>>
>> Although I wonder either would be fine, removed the words.
>>
>>>> + * This is just a warning so a loop-through-resultset will
>>>> not abort
>>>> + * if one backend logged its memory contexts during the run.
>>>>
>>>> The pid given by arg 0 is not a PostgreSQL server process. Which
>>>> other backend could it be ?
>>>
>>> This is the comment that I added wrongly. So the comment should be
>>> "This is just a warning so a loop-through-resultset will not abort
>>> if one backend terminated on its own during the run.",
>>> like pg_signal_backend(). Thought?
>>
>> +1.
>>
>> Attached v10 patch.
>
> Thanks for updating the patch!
>
> I updated the patch as follows. Could you check the attached patch?
Thanks a lot!
I don't have any objections to your improvements.
Regards,
