Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> it would definitely need to be a lot more constrained than
> >> send-any-signal-to-any-postgres-process ... even for a superuser,
> >> that's a mighty fat-gauge foot-gun.
>
> > What sort of constraints do you have in mind?
>
> I'd limit it to SIGINT (query cancel) and SIGTERM (fast shutdown),
> and I'm not even real sure about SIGTERM. That facility is designed to
> work in the case of shutting down all backends together --- I'm not sure
> I want to promise that it behaves pleasantly to SIGTERM one backend and
> leave the rest going. Nor do I see a real good use-case for it.
>
> Also, no killing processes that aren't regular backends (eg, the
> bgwriter, the stats processes, and most especially the postmaster).
>
> Another point is that killing by PID is not necessarily what you want to
> do --- kill by transaction ID might be a better API, especially for
> query-cancel cases.
Seems like useful functionality. Right now, how does an administrator
kill another backend from psql? They can't.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073