| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Oskari Saarenmaa <os(at)ohmu(dot)fi>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Show dropped users' backends in pg_stat_activity |
| Date: | 2016-03-24 16:03:39 |
| Message-ID: | 3577.1458835419@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I am not really in favor of half-fixing this. If we can't
> conveniently wait until a dropped role is completely out of the
> system, then I don't see a lot of point in trying to do it in the
> limited cases where we can. If LEFT JOIN is the way to go, then,
> blech, but, so be it.
I concur. Let's put the left join(s) into those views and call it
good.
BTW, I think we would need the left joins even if we had interlocking
in DROP, just to protect ourselves against race conditions. Remember
that what pg_stat_activity shows is a snapshot, which might be more or
less out of date compared to the catalog contents.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vladimir Sitnikov | 2016-03-24 16:06:35 | Re: NOT EXIST for PREPARE |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-03-24 15:59:55 | Re: NOT EXIST for PREPARE |