Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Keep in mind that 99% of the excuse for people to want to use SIGTERM is
>> that the backend isn't responding to SIGINT. If you've fixed things so
>> that SIGTERM cannot get them out of any situation that SIGINT doesn't
>> get them out of, I don't think it's a step forward.
> What I hear people ask is that they don't want the backend to read the
> next command but to exit. That seems like a reasonable request.
[shrug...] They can do that now, most of the time. What this is about
is dealing with corner cases, and in that respect what your proposal
will do is replace soluble problems with insoluble ones. But I suppose
I can't stop you if you're insistent.
regards, tom lane