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 | http://candle.pha.pa.us [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? http://archives.postgresql.org
