| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Daniel Farina" <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "Noah Misch" <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Cross-backend signals and administration (Was: Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role) |
| Date: | 2012-03-27 17:51:59 |
| Message-ID: | 4F71B7EF020000250004670B@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
>> Is there a hypothetical DBA that doesn't want a mere-mortal user
>> to be able to signal one of their own backends to do "cancel
>> query, rollback the transaction, then close the socket"? If so,
>> why?
Setting aside possible bugs in the mechanism, I have trouble
imagining a use-case where it would be undesirable to allow this.
> Well, I guess if you have different people sharing the same
> user-ID, you probably wouldn't want that.
As Tom pointed out, if there's another person sharing the user ID
you're using, and you don't trust them, their ability to cancel your
session is likely way down the list of concerns you should have.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Farina | 2012-03-27 17:52:43 | Re: Cross-backend signals and administration (Was: Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role) |
| Previous Message | Daniel Farina | 2012-03-27 17:48:52 | Re: Cross-backend signals and administration (Was: Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role) |