From: | "Euler Taveira" <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Bharath Rupireddy" <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Should we improve "PID XXXX is not a PostgreSQL server process" warning for pg_terminate_backend(<<postmaster_pid>>)? |
Date: | 2021-11-17 18:59:59 |
Message-ID: | 4563c535-4b52-4974-a251-2500a170d06b@www.fastmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021, at 4:27 AM, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> As there is some interest shown in this thread at [1], I'm attaching a
> new v3 patch here. Please review it.
I took a look at this patch. I have a few comments.
+ ereport(WARNING,
+ (errmsg("signalling postmaster with PID %d is not allowed", pid)));
I would say "signal postmaster PID 1234 is not allowed". It is not an
in-progress action.
s/shared-memory/shared memory/
syslogger and statistics collector don't have a procArray entry so you could
probably provide a new function that checks if it is an auxiliary process.
AuxiliaryPidGetProc() does not return all auxiliary processes; syslogger and
statistics collector don't have a procArray entry. You can use their PIDs
(SysLoggerPID and PgStatPID) to provide an accurate information.
+ if (proc)
+ ereport(WARNING,
+ (errmsg("signalling PostgreSQL server process with PID %d is not allowed",
I would say "signal PostgreSQL auxiliary process PID 1234 is not allowed".
+ ereport(WARNING,
+ (errmsg("PID %d is not a PostgreSQL server process", pid)));
I would say "PID 1234 is not a PostgreSQL backend process". That's the glossary
terminology.
--
Euler Taveira
EDB https://www.enterprisedb.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2021-11-17 19:00:13 | Re: Add planner support function for starts_with() |
Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2021-11-17 18:48:44 | Re: Non-superuser subscription owners |