On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Joachim Wieland <j...@mcknight.de> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> CancelRequest's behaviour currently equates to SIGINT, so >> processCancelRequest() can only use SIGINT if SIGINT's behaviour remains >> same. >> >> I would recommend we make SIGINT do cancel-anything, and handle >> everything else via SIGUSR1, including CancelRequest. > > Actually, now that I look into it, if we wanted to send SIGUSR1 with a > reason to a backend from within postmaster (where > processCancelRequest() lives), we'd need to have shared memory access > in postmaster which we have not. > > So the easiest way would be to keep SIGINTs behavior (cancel running > statements, not idle transactions) and allow cancellation of idle > transactions only via SQL but not via command line.
+1. That seems like the right approach to me. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
