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

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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                        |
  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

pgsql-patches by date

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

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group