| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Function to kill backend |
| Date: | 2004-07-26 01:23:02 |
| Message-ID: | 41045CF6.3050302@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
> Would you use a kill operation in the way you describe above if you knew
> that it had, say, a 1% chance of causing a database-wide PANIC each time
> you used it?
>
> The odds of a problem are probably a great deal less than 1%, especially
> if the backend is sitting idle. But they're not nil, and I don't think
> we have the resources to make them nil in this release cycle.
> Therefore I'm uneager to provide this feature simply because of "it
> might be nice to have" arguments. There's a lot of other stuff that is
> higher on the priority list, IMHO anyway.
Can we keep the cancel query function and just lose the kill one?
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-07-26 01:34:02 | Re: [HACKERS] Function to kill backend |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2004-07-25 22:20:48 | Re: pgxs: build infrastructure for extensions v4 |