On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 01:38 -0700, Daniel Farina wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Daniel Farina <daniel@heroku.com> wrote:
> >> Parallel to pg_cancel_backend, it'd be nice to allow the user to just
> >> outright kill a backend that they own (politely, with a SIGTERM),
> >> aborting any transactions in progress, including the idle transaction,
> >> and closing the socket.
> >
> > +1
>
> Here's a patch implementing the simple version, with no more guards
> against signal racing than have been seen previously. The more
> elaborate variants to close those races is being discussed in a
> parallel thread, but I thought I'd get this simple version out there.
Review:
After reading through the threads, it looks like there was no real
objection to this approach -- pid recycling is not something we're
concerned about.
I think you're missing a doc update though, in func.sgml:
"For the less restrictive <function>pg_cancel_backend</>, the role of an
active backend can be found from
the <structfield>usename</structfield> column of the
<structname>pg_stat_activity</structname> view."
Also, high-availability.sgml makes reference to pg_cancel_backend(), and
it might be worthwhile to add an "...and pg_terminate_backend()" there.
Other than that, it looks good to me.
Regards,Jeff Davis
