| From: | Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, 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 21:22:33 |
| Message-ID: | 41057619.90000@opencloud.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Andreas Pflug wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>>
>> If you don't mind plastering a "use at your own risk" sign on it, then
>> go for it.
>
>
> killing a backend is obviously much more "at your own risk" than a
> descent function.
>
[...]
What about implementing "kill" as "cancel then exit"? Does that
guarantee a safe exit in all cases?
It wouldn't catch *all* the cases where you want to kill a backend, just
the ones where the backend is in a cancellable state, but it seems to me
that the main usecase is killing an otherwise idle backend that the
client doesn't want to let go of. And if the backend isn't cancellable
for an extended period, you probably have other problems anyway.
-O
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-07-26 21:36:36 | Re: [HACKERS] Function to kill backend |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-07-26 21:01:30 | Re: win32 version info |