| From: | Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(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 17:26:42 |
| Message-ID: | CAAZKuFbmP7VXNLKA3KR2OMoh9M2N44gC0XTwHjq=yt_ZNUgxEQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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?
--
fdr
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-03-27 17:34:46 | Re: Command Triggers patch v18 |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-03-27 17:22:18 | Re: Another review of URI for libpq, v7 submission |