Should we improve "PID XXXX is not a PostgreSQL server process" warning for pg_terminate_backend(<<postmaster_pid>>)?

From: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Should we improve "PID XXXX is not a PostgreSQL server process" warning for pg_terminate_backend(<<postmaster_pid>>)?
Date: 2021-02-05 11:45:15
Message-ID: CALj2ACW7Rr-R7mBcBQiXWPp=JV5chajjTdudLiF5YcpW-BmHhg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

pg_terminate_backend and pg_cancel_backend with postmaster PID produce
"PID XXXX is not a PostgresSQL server process" warning [1], which
basically implies that the postmaster is not a PostgreSQL process at
all. This is a bit misleading because the postmaster is the parent of
all PostgreSQL processes. Should we improve the warning message if the
given PID is postmasters' PID?

If yes, how about a generic message for both of the functions -
"signalling postmaster process is not allowed" or "cannot signal
postmaster process" or some other better suggestion?

[1] 2471176 ---> is postmaster PID.
postgres=# select pg_terminate_backend(2471176);
WARNING: PID 2471176 is not a PostgreSQL server process
pg_terminate_backend
----------------------
f
(1 row)
postgres=# select pg_cancel_backend(2471176);
WARNING: PID 2471176 is not a PostgreSQL server process
pg_cancel_backend
-------------------
f
(1 row)

With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2021-02-05 12:12:06 Re: Parallel INSERT (INTO ... SELECT ...)
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2021-02-05 10:45:30 Fuzz testing COPY FROM parsing