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,
