Re: On login trigger: take three
| От | Konstantin Knizhnik |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: On login trigger: take three |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 5a3f33c8-6cda-2660-06f4-56482e1b3511@postgrespro.ru обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: On login trigger: take three (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: On login trigger: take three
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 14.09.2020 17:34, Pavel Stehule wrote:
If we introduce buildin session trigger , we should to define what is the session. Your design is much more related to the process than to session. So the correct name should be "process_start" trigger, or some should be different. I think there are two different events - process_start, and session_start, and there should be two different event triggers. Maybe the name "session_start" is just ambiguous and should be used with a different name.
I agree.
I can rename trigger to backend_start or process_start or whatever else.
5. I do not quite understand your concern. If I define trigger
procedure which is blocked (for example as in your example), then I can
use pg_cancel_backend to interrupt execution of login trigger and
superuser can login. What should be changed here?You cannot run pg_cancel_backend, because you cannot open a new session. There is a cycle.
It is always possible to login by disabling startup triggers using disable_session_start_trigger GUC:
psql "dbname=postgres options='-c disable_session_start_trigger=true'"
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: