| From: | Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Function to kill backend |
| Date: | 2004-04-06 19:58:28 |
| Message-ID: | 1081281507.56361.600.camel@jester |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 15:23, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> > So I would vote for Yes on SIGINT by XID, but No on SIGTERM by PID, if Tom
> > thinks there will be any significant support & troubleshooting involved for
> > the latter.
>
> So like I say, I'm hesitant to buy into supporting this without a fairly
> convincing argument that it's really needed.
It doesn't necessarily have to be a SIGTERM. The goal is to get rid of
unwanted idlers (connections). Could SIGINT be extended with a command
telling the daemon to shutdown or rollback the transaction as requested?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2004-04-06 19:59:50 | Re: Function to kill backend |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-04-06 19:49:31 | Re: Function to kill backend |