Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takah...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 13:56, Tatsuo Ishii <is...@postgresql.org> wrote:
>> Anyone has better idea? Tom dislikes my patch but I don't know how to
>> deal with it.
> There was another design in the past discussion:
> One idea is postmaster sets a flag in the shared memory area
> indicating it rceived SIGTERM before forwarding the signal to
> backends.
> Is it enough for your purpose and do we think it is more robust way?
To put this as briefly as possible: I don't want to add even one line of
code to distinguish pg_terminate_backend from database-wide shutdown.
That function should be a last-ditch tool, not something used on a daily
basis. So I disagree with the premise as much as with any particular
implementation.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
