Horton

Re: Function to kill backend

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
To: Rod Taylor <pg@rbt.ca>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Magnus Hagander <mha@sollentuna.net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2004-04-06T20:03:21Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Rod Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 15:23, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> > > So I would vote for Yes on SIGINT by XID, but No on SIGTERM by PID, if Tom 
> > > thinks there will be any significant support & troubleshooting involved for 
> > > the latter.
> > 
> > So like I say, I'm hesitant to buy into supporting this without a fairly
> > convincing argument that it's really needed.
> 
> It doesn't necessarily have to be a SIGTERM. The goal is to get rid of
> unwanted idlers (connections). Could SIGINT be extended with a command
> telling the daemon to shutdown or rollback the transaction as requested?

Nope, a signal is just a signal with no other info passed.  We could add
it, but it would be more code.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073