Re: Cross-backend signals and administration (Was: Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role)

From: Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Cross-backend signals and administration (Was: Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role)
Date: 2012-03-20 17:48:15
Message-ID: CAAZKuFYQq7X8Cp4H-ionG95mgY+aNEGQUWjS3uCa4u54d3dn0A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Maybe we should just not worry about this.
>
> That's been my reaction right along.  There's no evidence that PID
> recycling is a problem in the real world.

I'm entirely willing to acquiesce to that point of view. I only
thought this was the blocker as to why pg_terminate_backend was left
out of the pg_cancel_backend patch.

In that thread, I have since posted the simpler "just let it happen" version.

--
fdr

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitri Fontaine 2012-03-20 17:49:16 Command Triggers patch v18
Previous Message Dimitri Fontaine 2012-03-20 17:44:40 Re: Command Triggers, patch v11