Re: Escaping from blocked send() reprised.

Hello, thank you for keeping this discussion moving.

> > I think there's no such a reasonable time. The behavior might
> > should be determined from another point.. On alternative would be
> > let pg_terminate_backend() have a parameter instructing force
> > shutodwn (how to propagate it?), or make a forced shutdown on
> > duplicate invocation of pg_terminate_backend().
> 
> Well, I think that when people call pg_terminate_backend() just once,
> they expect it to kill the target backend.  I think people will
> tolerate a short delay, like a few seconds; after all, there's no
> guarantee, even today, that the backend will hit a
> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() in less than a few hundred milliseconds.

Sure.

> But they are not going to want to have to take a second action
> to kill the backend - killing it once should be sufficient.

Hmm, it sounds persuasive. Well, do you think they tolerate
-force option? (Even though its technical practicality is not
clear)

regards,

-- 
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center