From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> |
Cc: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: including pid's for `There are XX other sessions using the database` |
Date: | 2022-08-21 13:39:21 |
Message-ID: | 20220821133921.vmquukjydekje4dg@jrouhaud |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 02:52:29AM -0700, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 9:31 PM Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> wrote:
>
> >
> Thanks for responding.
>
> Since pg_stat_activity shows fewer number of connections compared to the
> number revealed in the error message,
> I am not sure the above query would terminate all connections for the
> database to be dropped.
How exactly are you checking pg_stat_activity? If you query that view right
after a failed attempt at dropping a database, there's no guarantee to find the
exact same connections on the target database as client might connect or
disconnect.
If you prevent any further connection by e.g. tweaking the pg_hba.conf then you
have a guarantee that the query will terminate all conflicting connections.
Using the FORCE option is just a simpler way to do it, as dropdb() starts with
preventing any new connection on the target database.
Overall, I agree that adding the list of pid to the message error message
doesn't seem useful.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Junwang Zhao | 2022-08-21 13:46:42 | Re: timing information for switching database |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2022-08-21 12:54:33 | Re: timing information for switching database |