| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Cross-backend signals and administration (Was: Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role) |
| Date: | 2012-03-27 17:38:47 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ2k8jF7BbsORbpBRf5nSC30_A_knPHQiX6+PhrXC=DNg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I think the more important question is a policy question: do we want
>> it to work like this? It seems like a policy question that ought to
>> be left to the DBA, but we have no policy management framework for
>> DBAs to configure what they do or do not wish to allow. Still, if
>> we've decided it's OK to allow cancelling, I don't see any real reason
>> why this should be treated differently.
>
> Is there a hypothetical DBA that doesn't want a mere-mortal user to be
> able to signal one of their own backends to do "cancel query, rollback
> the transaction, then close the socket"? If so, why?
Well, I guess if you have different people sharing the same user-ID,
you probably wouldn't want that.
But maybe that's not an important case.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-03-27 17:46:02 | Re: Cross-backend signals and administration (Was: Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-03-27 17:36:23 | Re: 9.2 commitfest closure (was Command Triggers, v16) |