Re: pg_terminate_backend

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> No, you have that backwards.  The burden of proof is on those who want
>> it to show that it's now safe.  The situation is not different than it
>> was before, except that we can now actually point to a specific bug that
>> did exist, whereas the original concern was just an unfocused one that
>> the code path hadn't been adequately exercised.  That concern is now
>> even more pressing than it was.

> I am not sure how you prove the non-existance of a bug.  Ideas?

What I'm looking for is some concentrated testing.  The fact that some
people once in a while SIGTERM a backend doesn't give me any confidence
in it.
        regards, tom lane