Hi, On 2019-10-02 13:27:50 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 9:26 AM Michael Paquier <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 05:02:28PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > > The reason for that is simply that at that point llvmjit.c's own > > > shutdown hook has already shutdown parts of the JIT subsystem (which > > > needs to flush profiling information to disk, for profiling to be > > > useful). > > > > Hmm. I missed the actual point. The current location for the session > > end hook has been chosen because we are sure that any transaction has > > been aborted properly, and we'd still be limited with a hook in > > proc_exit_prepare() because of that same argument. I am just going to > > revert the patch. > > If only session end hook is problematic, you will commit session start > hook again?
My impression is that these patches first need considerably more actual design and code review. This wasn't a subtle issue or anything. Greetings, Andres Freund
