On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > I think backwards compatibility probably trumps that argument. I have > no objection to providing a different call that behaves this way, but > changing the behavior of existing applications will face a *much* > higher barrier to acceptance. Especially since a real use-case for > the current behavior was shown upthread, which means you can't argue > that it's simply a bug. > > regards, tom lane
Agree. It breaks backwards compatibility. I use this function a fair bit to terminate the current backend all the time. -- Jon -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
