Re: pg_terminate_backend idea

From: Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews(at)supernews(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_terminate_backend idea
Date: 2005-06-22 18:16:36
Message-ID: slrndbjao4.192v.andrew+nonews@trinity.supernews.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2005-06-22, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> writes:
>>> I thought we agreed that using the cancel functionality, which we know
>>> works and is tested,
>
>> I've seen cancel *not* working. In 80 % this was the reason to use
>> terminate.
>
> Even a moment's perusal of the code will prove that there is no
> situation in which a backend will respond to SIGTERM but not SIGINT

"idle in transaction". (or "idle" for that matter, but that's usually less
significant.)

--
Andrew, Supernews
http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-06-22 18:39:28 Re: pg_terminate_backend idea
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2005-06-22 18:11:53 Re: commit_delay, siblings