From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: TerminateOtherDBBackends code comments inconsistency. |
Date: | 2024-04-30 17:06:18 |
Message-ID: | 20240430170618.b3.nmisch@google.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 09:10:52AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 2:58 AM Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 10:18:35AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 9:56 PM Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > > 3a9b18b309 didn't change the docs of pg_terminate_backend and whatever
> > > is mentioned w.r.t permissions in the doc of that function sounds
> > > valid for drop database force to me. Do you have any specific proposal
> > > in your mind?
> >
> > Something like the attached.
>
> LGTM.
>
> > One could argue the function should also check
> > isBackgroundWorker and ignore even bgworkers that set proc->roleId, but I've
> > not done that.
>
> What is the argument for ignoring such workers?
One of the proposed code comments says, "For bgworker authors, it's convenient
to be able to recommend FORCE if a worker is blocking DROP DATABASE
unexpectedly." That argument is debatable, but I do think it applies equally
to bgworkers whether or not they set proc->roleId.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-04-30 17:29:32 | Re: pg_trgm comparison bug on cross-architecture replication due to different char implementation |
Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2024-04-30 17:02:04 | Re: pg_trgm comparison bug on cross-architecture replication due to different char implementation |