Hello, thank you for keeping this discussion moving. > > I think there's no such a reasonable time. The behavior might > > should be determined from another point.. On alternative would be > > let pg_terminate_backend() have a parameter instructing force > > shutodwn (how to propagate it?), or make a forced shutdown on > > duplicate invocation of pg_terminate_backend(). > > Well, I think that when people call pg_terminate_backend() just once, > they expect it to kill the target backend. I think people will > tolerate a short delay, like a few seconds; after all, there's no > guarantee, even today, that the backend will hit a > CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() in less than a few hundred milliseconds.
Sure. > But they are not going to want to have to take a second action > to kill the backend - killing it once should be sufficient. Hmm, it sounds persuasive. Well, do you think they tolerate -force option? (Even though its technical practicality is not clear) regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
