On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2015-08-11 15:07:15 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: >> The attached patch adds an else branch to call CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(). >> >> But I think we could instead just call vacuum_delay_point unconditionally. >> It calls CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(), and if not in a throttled vacuum it does >> nothing else. (That is how ANALYZE handles it.)
> Hm, I find that not exactly pretty. I'd rather just add an unconditional > CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS to the function.
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS is very cheap. But I tend to agree that you should be using vacuum_delay_point.
Attached patch does it that way. There was also a free-standing CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() which had no reason that I could see not be a vacuum_delay_point, so I changed that one as well.
With this patch, ctrl-C and 'pg_ctl stop -mf' both behave nicely.
