| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Adam Brightwell <adam(dot)brightwell(at)crunchydatasolutions(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Additional role attributes && superuser review |
| Date: | 2015-03-16 20:43:32 |
| Message-ID: | 8154.1426538612@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> ... Lastly, there is the question of pg_cancel_backend and
> pg_terminate_backend. My thinking on this is to create a new
> 'pg_signal_backend' which admins could grant access to and leave the
> existing functions alone (modulo the change for has_privs_of_role as
> discussed previously). We'd rename the current 'pg_signal_backend' to
> something else (maybe '_helper'); it's not exposed anywhere and
> therefore renaming it shouldn't cause any heartache.
That seems fairly ugly. Why would we need a new, duplicative function
here? (Apologies if the reasoning was spelled out upthread, I've not
been paying much attention.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-03-16 20:49:06 | Re: Additional role attributes && superuser review |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2015-03-16 20:41:15 | Re: pgsql: Support opfamily members in get_object_address |