On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 02:00:41PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 07:13:16PM -0700, David Johnston wrote:
> >> > Your feelings on how far to back-patch?
> >>
> >> All suppor
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 07:13:16PM -0700, David Johnston wrote:
>> > Your feelings on how far to back-patch?
>>
>> All supported versions. The current behavior is a bug every way I look at
>> it.
* Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 07:13:16PM -0700, David Johnston wrote:
> > Your feelings on how far to back-patch?
>
> All supported versions. The current behavior is a bug every way I look at it.
Agreed. I noticed a stale backend hanging around after a
cancel
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 07:13:16PM -0700, David Johnston wrote:
> Noah Misch-2 wrote
> > The errfinish() pertaining to that WARNING issues CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(),
> > and
> > the query cancel pending since before the SIGQUIT arrived then takes
> > effect.
> > This is less bad on 9.4, because the po
Noah Misch-2 wrote
> The errfinish() pertaining to that WARNING issues CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(),
> and
> the query cancel pending since before the SIGQUIT arrived then takes
> effect.
> This is less bad on 9.4, because the postmaster will SIGKILL the backend
> after
> 5s. On older releases, the back
