From: | Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_cancel_backend by non-superuser |
Date: | 2011-10-02 02:11:59 |
Message-ID: | 4E87C86F.8070802@timbira.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01-10-2011 17:44, Daniel Farina wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> ISTM it would be reasonably non-controversial to allow users to issue
>> pg_cancel_backend against other sessions logged in as the same userID.
>> The question is whether to go further than that, and if so how much.
>
> In *every* case -- and there are many -- where we've had people
> express pain, this would have sufficed.
>
I see. What about passing this decision to DBA? I mean a GUC
can_cancel_session = user, dbowner (default is '' -- only superuser). You can
select one or both options. This GUC can only be changed by superuser.
--
Euler Taveira de Oliveira - Timbira http://www.timbira.com.br/
PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2011-10-02 06:12:03 | Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-10-02 01:46:49 | Re: pg_dump issues |