On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> I think backwards compatibility probably trumps that argument. I have
> no objection to providing a different call that behaves this way, but
> changing the behavior of existing applications will face a *much*
> higher barrier to acceptance. Especially since a real use-case for
> the current behavior was shown upthread, which means you can't argue
> that it's simply a bug.
>
> regards, tom lane
Agree.
It breaks backwards compatibility. I use this function a fair bit to
terminate the current backend all the time.
--
Jon
