Re: Show dropped users' backends in pg_stat_activity

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Oskari Saarenmaa <os(at)ohmu(dot)fi>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Show dropped users' backends in pg_stat_activity
Date: 2016-03-24 16:03:39
Message-ID: 3577.1458835419@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I am not really in favor of half-fixing this. If we can't
> conveniently wait until a dropped role is completely out of the
> system, then I don't see a lot of point in trying to do it in the
> limited cases where we can. If LEFT JOIN is the way to go, then,
> blech, but, so be it.

I concur. Let's put the left join(s) into those views and call it
good.

BTW, I think we would need the left joins even if we had interlocking
in DROP, just to protect ourselves against race conditions. Remember
that what pg_stat_activity shows is a snapshot, which might be more or
less out of date compared to the catalog contents.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vladimir Sitnikov 2016-03-24 16:06:35 Re: NOT EXIST for PREPARE
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-03-24 15:59:55 Re: NOT EXIST for PREPARE