Re: Cross-backend signals and administration (Was: Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role)

From: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 02:17:36
Message-ID: CAM-w4HPKRADfHYxTZQMmgsxbe0tggg69cNikw-QFGk1_JFuBgA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Hrm, I think we're talking at cross-purposes here.
>
> Me: "This mechanism hasn't been tested enough, and may still have nasty bugs."
>
> You: "Then let's invent some entirely new mechanism."
>
> I'm not seeing how that responds to the concern.

I assume the intention was that the "entirely new mechanism" would be
a less risky one.

I may be forgetting something obvious here but is there even a
function to send an interrupt signal? That would trigger the same
behaviour that a user hitting C-c would trigger which would only be
handled at the next CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS which seems like it would be
non-controversial and iirc we don't currently have a function to do
this for other connections the user may have if he doesn't have access
to the original terminal and doesn't have raw shell access to run
arbitrary commands.

--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 2012-03-27 02:20:42 Re: Speed dblink using alternate libpq tuple storage
Previous Message Robert Haas 2012-03-27 01:11:21 Re: Command Triggers patch v18