Re: pg_terminate_backend

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_terminate_backend
Date: 2006-08-03 16:21:55
Message-ID: 20153.1154622115@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> No, you have that backwards. The burden of proof is on those who want
>> it to show that it's now safe.

> If the backend's stuck, I'll have to SIGTERM it, whether there's
> pg_terminate_backend or not.

"Stuck?" You have not shown us a case where SIGTERM rather than SIGINT
is necessary or appropriate. It seems to me the above is assuming the
existence of unknown backend bugs, exactly the same thing you think
I shouldn't be assuming ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message tomas 2006-08-03 16:22:42 Re: Patch to allow C extension modules to initialize/finish
Previous Message Andrew Hammond 2006-08-03 16:11:38 Re: Replication Documentation