Re: Proposal to add a QNX 6.5 port to PostgreSQL

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Baker, Keith [OCDUS Non-J&J]" <KBaker9(at)its(dot)jnj(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal to add a QNX 6.5 port to PostgreSQL
Date: 2014-08-01 01:51:29
Message-ID: 577.1406857889@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Baker, Keith [OCDUS Non-J&J]" <KBaker9(at)its(dot)jnj(dot)com> writes:
> Since ensuring there are not orphaned back-end processes is vital, could we add a check for getppid() == 1 ?

No. Or yeah, we could, but that patch would add no security worth
mentioning. For example, someone could launch a query that runs for
many minutes, and would have plenty of time to conflict with a
subsequently-started postmaster.

Even without that issue, there's no consensus that forcibly making
orphan backends exit would be a good thing. (Some people would
like to have such an option, but the key word in that sentence is
"option".)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2014-08-01 03:01:05 Re: commitfest status
Previous Message Baker, Keith [OCDUS Non-J&J] 2014-07-31 22:50:52 Re: Proposal to add a QNX 6.5 port to PostgreSQL