On Tuesday, September 04, 2012 06:20:59 AM Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > I can see why that would be nice, but is it really realistic? Don't we > > expect some more diligence in applications using this against letting > > such a child continue to run after ctrl-c/SIGTERMing e.g. pg_dump in > > comparison to closing a normal database connection? > > Er, what? If you kill the client, the child postgres will see > connection closure and will shut down. I already tested that with the > POC patch, it worked fine. Well, but that will make scripting harder because you cannot start another single backend pg_dump before the old backend noticed it, checkpointed and shut down.
Andres -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
