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.
Regards,
