Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I think if we want pg_terminate_backend, we have to do it the way that > >> was originally discussed: have it issue SIGTERM and fix whatever needs > >> to be fixed in the SIGTERM code path. > > > Well, with no movement on this TODO item since it was removed in 8.0, I > > am willing to give users something that works most of the time. > > If the users want it so bad, why has no one stepped up to do the > testing?
Good question. Tom and I talked about this on the phone today. I think the problem is testing to try to prove the lack of a bug. How long does someone test to know they have reasonably proven a bug doesn't exist? I think the other problem is what to test. One SIGTERM problem that was reported was related to schema changes. Certainly that has to be tested, but what else: prepared statements, queries, HOT updates, connect/disconnect, notify? There are lots of place to test and it is hard to know which ones, and for how long. I am starting to think we need to analyze the source code rather than testing, because of what we are testing for. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
