Re: Function to kill backend - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Rod Taylor
Subject Re: Function to kill backend
Date
Msg-id 1081281507.56361.600.camel@jester
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Function to kill backend  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Function to kill backend  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 15:23, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> > So I would vote for Yes on SIGINT by XID, but No on SIGTERM by PID, if Tom 
> > thinks there will be any significant support & troubleshooting involved for 
> > the latter.
> 
> So like I say, I'm hesitant to buy into supporting this without a fairly
> convincing argument that it's really needed.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a SIGTERM. The goal is to get rid of
unwanted idlers (connections). Could SIGINT be extended with a command
telling the daemon to shutdown or rollback the transaction as requested?




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Function to kill backend
Next
From: Rod Taylor
Date:
Subject: Re: Function to kill backend