Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role
Date: 2012-03-16 05:33:45
Message-ID: 321.1331876025@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> writes:
> The way MyCancelKey is checked now is backwards, in my mind. It seems
> like it would be better checked by the receiving PID (one can use a
> check/recheck also, if so inclined). Is there a large caveat to that?

You mean, other than the fact that kill(2) can't transmit such a key?

But actually I don't see what you hope to gain from such a change,
even if it can be made to work. Anyone who can do kill(SIGINT) can
do kill(SIGKILL), say --- so you have to be able to trust the signal
sender. What's the point of not trusting it to verify the client
identity?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Farina 2012-03-16 05:41:05 Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role
Previous Message Daniel Farina 2012-03-16 04:59:20 Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role