Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: How to know killed by pg_terminate_backend

From: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
Subject: Re: How to know killed by pg_terminate_backend
Date: 2011-01-02 23:17:42
Message-ID: 20110103.081742.681018391919718237.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>> Comments are welcome.
> 
> This is a bad idea.  It makes an already-poorly-tested code path
> significantly more fragile, in return for nothing of value.

Are you saying that procsignal.c is the already-poorly-tested one? If
so, why?

As for "value", I have already explained why we need this in the
upthread.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2011-01-02 23:23:19
Subject: Re: Recovery conflict monitoring
Previous:From: Peter GeogheganDate: 2011-01-02 22:51:13
Subject: Re: C++ keywords in headers (was Re: [GENERAL] #include <funcapi.h>)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group