Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > Would you use a kill operation in the way you describe above if you knew
> > that it had, say, a 1% chance of causing a database-wide PANIC each time
> > you used it?
> > 
> > The odds of a problem are probably a great deal less than 1%, especially
> > if the backend is sitting idle.  But they're not nil, and I don't think
> > we have the resources to make them nil in this release cycle.
> > Therefore I'm uneager to provide this feature simply because of "it
> > might be nice to have" arguments.  There's a lot of other stuff that is
> > higher on the priority list, IMHO anyway.
> Can we keep the cancel query function and just lose the kill one?

No one is suggesting removing cancel so that one is fine.  Sending a
single to cancel is done all the time already so that should be fine.

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to