Re: pg_terminate_backend idea - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew - Supernews
Subject Re: pg_terminate_backend idea
Date
Msg-id slrndbjao4.192v.andrew+nonews@trinity.supernews.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_terminate_backend idea  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: pg_terminate_backend idea
List pgsql-hackers
On 2005-06-22, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> writes:
>>> I thought we agreed that using the cancel functionality, which we know
>>> works and is tested,
>
>> I've seen cancel *not* working. In 80 % this was the reason to use 
>> terminate.
>
> Even a moment's perusal of the code will prove that there is no
> situation in which a backend will respond to SIGTERM but not SIGINT

"idle in transaction". (or "idle" for that matter, but that's usually less
significant.)

-- 
Andrew, Supernews
http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: commit_delay, siblings
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_terminate_backend idea