Re: Should we improve "PID XXXX is not a PostgreSQL server process" warning for pg_terminate_backend(<<postmaster_pid>>)?

From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
To: Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>
Cc: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Should we improve "PID XXXX is not a PostgreSQL server process" warning for pg_terminate_backend(<<postmaster_pid>>)?
Date: 2021-11-17 19:13:02
Message-ID: 20211117191302.GC17618@telsasoft.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 03:59:59PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021, at 4:27 AM, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > As there is some interest shown in this thread at [1], I'm attaching a
> > new v3 patch here. Please review it.
> I took a look at this patch. I have a few comments.
>
> + ereport(WARNING,
> + (errmsg("signalling postmaster with PID %d is not allowed", pid)));
>
> I would say "signal postmaster PID 1234 is not allowed". It is not an
> in-progress action.

It's correct to say "signalling ... is not allowed", which means the same as
"it is not allowed to signal ...".

--
Justin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2021-11-17 19:19:20 Re: Deficient error handling in pg_dump and pg_basebackup
Previous Message Bossart, Nathan 2021-11-17 19:00:13 Re: Add planner support function for starts_with()