Re: Change pg_cancel_*() to ignore current backend
От | Jim Nasby |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Change pg_cancel_*() to ignore current backend |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 555D1D6B.8080507@BlueTreble.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Change pg_cancel_*() to ignore current backend (Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql@jamponi.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Change pg_cancel_*() to ignore current backend
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/20/15 11:15 AM, Jon Nelson wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> >> I think backwards compatibility probably trumps that argument. I have >> no objection to providing a different call that behaves this way, but >> changing the behavior of existing applications will face a *much* >> higher barrier to acceptance. Especially since a real use-case for >> the current behavior was shown upthread, which means you can't argue >> that it's simply a bug. >> >> regards, tom lane > > > Agree. > It breaks backwards compatibility. I use this function a fair bit to > terminate the current backend all the time. Could you elaborate on your use case for doing that? Echoing David's comment elsewhere, I suspect non-developers won't have a use for self-termination. I don't see how self-cancel even makes sense, and generally if you want to terminate the connection there's easier ways to do that then "SELECT pg_terminate_backend(pg_backend_pid())". I certainly don't want to cause pain for developers, but is this really that common? BTW, if someone had an awesome idea for a new function name then we could just go that route. I can't think of anything better than pg_*_session. Though, I guess we could do pg_terminate_session and pg_cancel_query, which wouldn't be horrid. -- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: