On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 18:48, Daniel Farina <dan...@heroku.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>> Maybe we should just not worry about this. >> >> That's been my reaction right along. There's no evidence that PID >> recycling is a problem in the real world. > > I'm entirely willing to acquiesce to that point of view. I only > thought this was the blocker as to why pg_terminate_backend was left > out of the pg_cancel_backend patch.
Late back into this thread. I wasn't aware that was the reason there. I think it was the general "leftovers" from previous times. When we first created pg_terminate_backend() there was a general thought that it might not be safe to just SIGTERM a backend to make it quit. A bunch of fixes were put in place to make it more safe, but I'm not sure anybody actually declared it fully safe. And I think it's a lot of legacy from that time that just steers people towards the baby-steps approach. I'm not sure - perhaps we're past that worry these days? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
