Hi,
On 2019-10-02 13:27:50 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 9:26 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> 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