"Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net> writes:
> Assuming we don't get such a case, and a chance to fix it, before 8.1
> (while still hoping we will get it fixed properly, we can't be sure, can
> we? If we were, it'd be fixed already). In this case, will you consider
> such a kludgy solution as a temporary fix to resolve a problem that a
> lot of users are having? And then plan to have it removed once sending
> SIGTERM directly to a backend can be considered safe?
Kluges tend to become institutionalized, so my reaction is "no". It's
also worth pointing out that with so little understanding of the problem
Rod is reporting, it's tough to make a convincing case that this kluge
will avoid it. SIGTERM exit *shouldn't* be leaving any corrupted
locktable entries behind; it's not that much different from the normal
case. Until we find out what's going on, introducing still another exit
path isn't really going to make me feel more comfortable, no matter how
close it's alleged to be to the normal path.
regards, tom lane
