Re: [HACKERS] Function to kill backend

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>,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 01:34:02
Message-ID: 200407260134.i6Q1Y2b03933@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > 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?

No one is suggesting removing cancel so that one is fine. Sending a
single to cancel is done all the time already so that should be fine.

--
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

In response to

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2004-07-26 01:36:16 Re: [HACKERS] Function to kill backend
Previous Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2004-07-26 01:23:02 Re: [HACKERS] Function to kill backend