Re: Cross-backend signals and administration (Was: Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Daniel Farina
Subject Re: Cross-backend signals and administration (Was: Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role)
Date
Msg-id CAAZKuFYQq7X8Cp4H-ionG95mgY+aNEGQUWjS3uCa4u54d3dn0A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Cross-backend signals and administration (Was: Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Cross-backend signals and administration (Was: Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role)  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> Maybe we should just not worry about this.
>
> That's been my reaction right along.  There's no evidence that PID
> recycling is a problem in the real world.

I'm entirely willing to acquiesce to that point of view.  I only
thought this was the blocker as to why pg_terminate_backend was left
out of the pg_cancel_backend patch.

In that thread, I have since posted the simpler "just let it happen" version.

--
fdr


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dimitri Fontaine
Date:
Subject: Re: Command Triggers, patch v11
Next
From: Dimitri Fontaine
Date:
Subject: Command Triggers patch v18