Re: TerminateOtherDBBackends code comments inconsistency.

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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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