On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 18:48, Daniel Farina <daniel@heroku.com> wrote:
> 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.
Late back into this thread.
I wasn't aware that was the reason there. I think it was the general
"leftovers" from previous times. When we first created
pg_terminate_backend() there was a general thought that it might not
be safe to just SIGTERM a backend to make it quit. A bunch of fixes
were put in place to make it more safe, but I'm not sure anybody
actually declared it fully safe. And I think it's a lot of legacy from
that time that just steers people towards the baby-steps approach.
I'm not sure - perhaps we're past that worry these days?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
