Re: pg_cancel_backend by non-superuser
От | Greg Smith |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_cancel_backend by non-superuser |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4EE3981E.4060109@2ndQuadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_cancel_backend by non-superuser (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/02/2011 05:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm with Noah on this. If allowing same-user cancels is enough to solve > 95% or 99% of the real-world use cases, let's just do that. And we're back full circle. This is basically where Josh Kuperschmidt started in early 2010: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4ec1cf761002051455i6e702999y7cf4699b4eb48242@mail.gmail.com Then Torello's patch initially more ambitious patch got pruned down to the same sort of feature set. Next, the day after the November CommitFest started (so it got kind of lost), Edward Muller took a shot at coding exactly this too, which he tells me happened without even knowing the other two were already floating around: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CABm0hDX+xUc3dsNCnb2Z2mErtw3Crcc5KjMVh6KWHB7JNixpHg@mail.gmail.com The picture of what people really want here is pretty clear now, after different people wanted same-user cancels (or more) badly enough to submit a patch adding it, in three cases now. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: