On Fri, 2021-07-09 at 23:10 +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> In my experience SIGTERM coped fine so far.
OK. I don't think ignoring SIGTERM in the way my patch does it is a
great solution, and it's not getting much support, so I think I'll back
away from that idea.
I had a separate discussion with Andres, and he made a distinction
between explicit vs. implicit actions. For instance, an explicit
SIGTERM or SIGINT should not be ignored (or the functions that cause
those to happen); but if we are waiting for sync rep then it might be
OK to ignore a cancel caused by statement_timeout or a termination due
to a network disconnect.
Separately, I'm taking a vacation. Since there are two versions of the
patch floating around, I will withdraw mine.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
