From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Eric Ridge <e_ridge(at)tcdi(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Change pg_cancel_*() to ignore current backend |
Date: | 2015-05-23 08:23:47 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqR+bv7BU36cdO0pUGmv+6g_CLG01qLFGv+7DFKmtyqYPg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>> This whole discussion seems to be about making it easier to run SELECT
>> pg_cancel_backend(pid) FROM pg_stat_activity;. But that shouldn't be
>> made easier! If anything harder.
>
> Indeed. I find it hard to believe that there's a real problem here, and
> I absolutely will resist breaking backwards compatibility to solve it.
+1. Reading this thread I don't see why there is actually a problem...
The whole discussion is about moving the check at SQL-level with
pg_backend_pid(), that people are used to for a couple of releases
now, into pg_cancel_backend() or within a new function. I am not
really convinced that it is worth having a new interface for that.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nils Goroll | 2015-05-23 13:46:33 | xid wrap / optimize frozen tables? |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2015-05-23 06:03:28 | Re: Issues in Replication Progress Tracking |