2017-03-15 0:44 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com>
> >> I don't understand. The only way you'd need a server restart is if a
> >> background process wasn't responding to SIGTERM, and that's a bug
> >> independent of anything this patch does. It would be cause by the
> >> background process not doing CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() or the moral
> >> equivalent regularly.
> > It is bug, and I don't know if it s this extension bug or general bug.
> > There is not adequate cleaning after killing.
> > How can be implemented pg_cancel_backend on background process if there
> > not CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS?
> You can't. But what does that have to do with this patch?
I don't understand - CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS called from executor implicitly.
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company