From: | Oskari Saarenmaa <os(at)aiven(dot)io> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Show dropped users' backends in pg_stat_activity |
Date: | 2016-04-07 20:22:08 |
Message-ID: | 5706C170.8000202@aiven.io |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
24.03.2016, 18:03, Tom Lane kirjoitti:
> 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 less out of date compared to the catalog contents.
Added my patch to the 2016-09 commitfest
(https://commitfest.postgresql.org/10/601/) as a bug fix as I thought
not showing all backends in pg_stat_activity is a bug. Any chance to
get it in 9.6?
--
Oskari Saarenmaa
Aiven: managed cloud databases
https://aiven.io
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-04-07 20:26:56 | Re: [patch] Proposal for \crosstabview in psql |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2016-04-07 20:19:37 | Re: [HACKERS] BUG #13854: SSPI authentication failure: wrong realm name used |