Re: Function to kill backend

Rod Taylor wrote:
> 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?

Nope, a signal is just a signal with no other info passed. We could add
it, but it would be more code.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073