On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 13:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Can you explain further what you meant by "don't disable manual
> > cancels".
> I meant that pg_cancel_backend() should still work on autovac workers,
> contrary to Alvaro's suggestion that autovac workers should sometimes
> ignore SIGINT.
> Basically the implementation vision I have is that the SIGINT catcher in
> an autovac worker should remain stupid, and any intelligence involved
> should be on the side where we're deciding whether to send a signal or
> not.  This probably does involve exposing more state in PGPROC but I see
> nothing much wrong with that.  (It might be time to merge inVacuum,
> isAutovacuum, and the additional state into a bitwise vacuumFlags field.)


  Simon Riggs
  2ndQuadrant  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to