"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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!
