Josh Berkus wrote:
> Tom,
>
> > I don't think it's an open-and-shut decision as to whether people
> > actually *need* to do session kills (as opposed to query/transaction
> > kills). The arguments presented so far are not convincing to my mind,
> > certainly not convincing enough to buy into a commitment to do whatever
> > it takes to support that.
>
> Hmmm ... well, I can make a real-world case from my supported apps for
> transaction/statement kills. But my support for session kills is just
> hypothetical; any time I've had to kill off sessions, it's because I had to
> shut the database down, and that's better done from the command line.
>
> My web apps which need to manage the number of connections do it through their
> connection pool.
>
> 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.
>
> Unless, of course, someone can give us a real business case that they have
> actually encountered in production.
Someone already posted some pseudocode where they wanted to kill idle
backends, perhaps as part of connection pooling.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
