Re: Patch to allow users to kill their own queries
От | Greg Smith |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Patch to allow users to kill their own queries |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4EEB3A2B.8090102@2ndQuadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Patch to allow users to kill their own queries (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Patch to allow users to kill their own queries
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/14/2011 05:24 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > How about passing a parameter to pg_signal_backend? Making > pg_signal_backend(int pid, int sig, bool allow_samerole)? > That works, got rid of the parts I didn't like and allowed some useful minor restructuring. I also made the HINT better and match style guidelines: gsmith=> select pg_terminate_backend(21205); ERROR: must be superuser to terminate other server processes HINT: You can cancel your own processes with pg_cancel_backend(). gsmith=> select pg_cancel_backend(21205); pg_cancel_backend ------------------- t New rev attached and pushed to https://github.com/greg2ndQuadrant/postgres/tree/cancel-backend (which is *not* the same branch as I used last time; don't ask why, long story) I considered some additional ways to restructure the checks that could remove a further line or two from the logic here, but they all made the result seem less readable to me. And this is not a high performance code path. I may have gone a bit too far with the comment additions though, so feel free to trim that back. It kept feeling weird to me that none of the individual signaling functions had their own intro comments. I added all those. I also wrote up a commentary on the PID wraparound race condition possibility Josh brought up. Some research shows that pid assignment on some systems is made more secure by assigning new ones randomly. That seems like it would make it possible to have a pid get reused much faster than on the usual sort of system that does sequential assignment and wraparound. A reuse collision still seems extremely unlikely though. With the new comments, at least a future someone who speculates on this will know how much thinking went into the current implementation: enough to notice, not enough to see anything worth doing about it. Maybe that's just wasted lines of text? With so little grief on the last round, I'm going to guess this one will just get picked up by Magnus to commit next. Marking accordingly and moved to the current CommitFest. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: