From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Leung, Anthony" <antholeu(at)amazon(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Allow non-superuser to cancel superuser tasks. |
Date: | 2024-04-09 22:58:39 |
Message-ID: | ZhXIH3JuKX34r905@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 12:52:19AM +0300, Kirill Reshke wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 at 08:53, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>> The thing is that you cannot rely on a lookup of the backend type for
>> the error information, or you open yourself to letting the caller of
>> pg_cancel_backend or pg_terminate_backend know if a backend is
>> controlled by a superuser or if a backend is an autovacuum worker.
>
> Good catch. Thanks. I think we need to update the error message to not
> leak backend type info.
Yep, that's necessary I am afraid.
>> The choice of pg_signal_autovacuum is a bit inconsistent, as well,
>> because autovacuum workers operate like regular backends. This name
>> can also be confused with the autovacuum launcher.
>
> Ok. What would be a good choice? Is `pg_signal_autovacuum_worker` good
> enough?
Sounds fine to me. Perhaps others have an opinion about that?
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-04-09 23:00:41 | Re: Speed up clean meson builds by ~25% |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2024-04-09 22:33:10 | Re: Speed up clean meson builds by ~25% |