Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think changing the outer "for(;;)" to "while (!got_SIGTERM)" would
>> be a much safer fix.
> Ah, yeah. I was thinking in changing PG_exception_stack once shutdown
> was requested, but this is much simpler.
Your proposed patch seems to be doing both of those, which is probably
unnecessary. I don't object to the SIGHUP test and goto in the error
path, but I'd put it a lot further down, like after the existing
RESUME_INTERRUPTS. I doubt it's a good idea to skip the transaction
cleanup steps.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
