Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> we could really do better than just wonder whether our signal to
> shutdown was received or not. There probably should be a quite short
> timeout for the server to change status, and then a much longer one for
> that shutdown to finish.
While I don't want to just raise the timeout, I could get behind a more
thorough rethinking of the behavior there.
regards, tom lane