| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_terminate_backend |
| Date: | 2006-08-03 15:04:44 |
| Message-ID: | 18763.1154617484@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> No, you have that backwards. The burden of proof is on those who want
>> it to show that it's now safe. The situation is not different than it
>> was before, except that we can now actually point to a specific bug that
>> did exist, whereas the original concern was just an unfocused one that
>> the code path hadn't been adequately exercised. That concern is now
>> even more pressing than it was.
> I am not sure how you prove the non-existance of a bug. Ideas?
What I'm looking for is some concentrated testing. The fact that some
people once in a while SIGTERM a backend doesn't give me any confidence
in it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Csaba Nagy | 2006-08-03 15:11:42 | Re: pg_terminate_backend |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-03 14:58:10 | Re: Values list-of-targetlists patch for comments (was Re: [PATCHES] |