From: | Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Optional message to user when terminating/cancelling backend |
Date: | 2017-06-22 08:24:57 |
Message-ID: | 20170622172457.4cb16f7f.nagata@sraoss.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:24:54 +0900
Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
> > The message is truncated in SetBackendCancelMessage() for safety, but
> > pg_{cancel|terminate}_backend() could throw an error on too long message, or
> > warning truncation, to the caller as well. Personally I think a warning is the
> > appropriate response, but I don’t really have a strong opinion.
>
> And a NOTICE? That's what happens for relation name truncation. You
> are right that having a check in SetBackendCancelMessage() makes the
> most sense as bgworkers could just call the low level API. Isn't the
> concept actually closer to just a backend message? This slot could be
> used for other purposes than cancellation.
+1 for NOTICE. The message truncation seems to be a kind of helpful
information rather than a likely problem as long as pg_terminated_backend
exits successfully.
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/runtime-config-logging.html#runtime-config-severity-levels
> --
> Michael
--
Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kang Yuzhe | 2017-06-22 08:30:09 | Re: SQL MERGE patches for PostgreSQL Versions |
Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2017-06-22 08:23:48 | Re: SQL MERGE patches for PostgreSQL Versions |