From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Patch to allow users to kill their own queries |
Date: | 2011-12-16 13:42:56 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYUAGqACTgNA6T=si7uY9woYtwwHSqvg6=vpkYnSpmkDg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> This is a problem with the existing code though, and the proposed changes
> don't materially alter that; there's just another quick check in one path
> through. Right now we check if someone is superuser, then if it's a backend
> PID, then we send the signal. If you assume someone can run through all the
> PIDs between those checks and the kill, the system is already broken that
> way.
From a theoretical point of view, I believe it to be slightly
different. If a superuser sends a kill, they will certainly be
authorized to kill whatever they end up killing, because they are
authorized to kill anything. On the other hand, the proposed patch
would potentially result - in the extremely unlikely event of a
super-fast PID wraparound - in someone cancelling a query they
otherwise wouldn't have been able to cancel.
In practice, the chances of this seem fairly remote.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Albe Laurenz | 2011-12-16 13:49:43 | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-12-16 13:42:40 | Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock |