Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Keep in mind that 99% of the excuse for people to want to use SIGTERM is
> >> that the backend isn't responding to SIGINT. If you've fixed things so
> >> that SIGTERM cannot get them out of any situation that SIGINT doesn't
> >> get them out of, I don't think it's a step forward.
>
> > What I hear people ask is that they don't want the backend to read the
> > next command but to exit. That seems like a reasonable request.
>
> [shrug...] They can do that now, most of the time. What this is about
> is dealing with corner cases, and in that respect what your proposal
> will do is replace soluble problems with insoluble ones. But I suppose
> I can't stop you if you're insistent.
I am kind of confused by your reaction to my idea. I thought we agreed
that there was going to be no way to cleanly terminate a backend at an
arbitrary time, and I thought we were getting better at having query
cancel work in most cases, so it seems combining these two ideas that
query cancel with an immediate exit from the query loop was a perfect
solution to a feature request we get regularly.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
