Re: including pid's for `There are XX other sessions using the database`

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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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