From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql(at)jamponi(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com >> David G Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Change pg_cancel_*() to ignore current backend |
Date: | 2015-05-22 18:28:35 |
Message-ID: | 555F7553.7060805@BlueTreble.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/21/15 7:12 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 8:46 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> I've a hard time believing it's actually a good idea to change this. It
>> pretty much seems to only be useful if you're doing unqualified SELECT
>> pg_cancel_backend(pid) FROM pg_stat_activity; type queries. I don't see
>> that as something we need to address.
>
> +1. I'm not saying this isn't annoying - I've been annoyed by it
> myself - but IMHO it's really not worth having two functions that do
> 99% the same thing. Then, instead of having to remember to exclude
> your own backend using the same SQL syntax you use for everything
> else, you have to remember which of two similarly-named functions to
> call if you don't want to kill your own backend. That might be better
> for some people, but it won't be better for everyone.
OTOH, if we allowed RAISE FATAL in plpgsql there'd be no need for
self-termination via pg_terminate_backend(). I also don't see a problem
with allowing self-termination, with the default being to disallow it.
I suspect the number of people writing code that need self-termination
is very, very small, whereas probably every DBA out there has been
bitten by this. This is the type of thing that gives Postgres a
reputation for being 'hard to use'. I would think the benefit of the
larger group would outweigh the pain the smaller group would feel
changing their code, but of course that's just my opinion and I don't
see any easy way to quantify that.
You and Andreas think it's fine as-is.
Tom and Jon Nelson maybe don't like it as-is, but won't break backwards
compatibility.
David Steele and I seem fine with breaking compat., not sure about Fabrizio.
Given the opposition unless some others speak up I'll just drop it.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabrízio de Royes Mello | 2015-05-22 18:34:50 | Re: Change pg_cancel_*() to ignore current backend |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2015-05-22 18:22:37 | Re: Add a hint when postgresql.conf hot_standby = 'off' and recovery.conf standby = 'on' |