| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: TerminateOtherDBBackends code comments inconsistency. |
| Date: | 2024-04-30 03:40:52 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LTdwUma_i9=s4-aSkeu+p1cfREMPh6mcayHncN+L=RaQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 2:58 AM Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 10:18:35AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 9:56 PM Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > 3a9b18b309 didn't change the docs of pg_terminate_backend and whatever
> > is mentioned w.r.t permissions in the doc of that function sounds
> > valid for drop database force to me. Do you have any specific proposal
> > in your mind?
>
> Something like the attached.
>
LGTM.
> One could argue the function should also check
> isBackgroundWorker and ignore even bgworkers that set proc->roleId, but I've
> not done that.
What is the argument for ignoring such workers?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | shveta malik | 2024-04-30 03:54:26 | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-04-30 03:37:21 | Re: pg_trgm comparison bug on cross-architecture replication due to different char implementation |