| From: | Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Cross-backend signals and administration (Was: Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role) |
| Date: | 2012-03-27 17:52:43 |
| Message-ID: | CAAZKuFYJTiKKS+k62V+JS=fLcJs1WxAu7DNq3t0-0RxsHH3iXQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>> Isn't it the case that many web applications run under some common
>> database user regardless of the underlying webapp user? I wouldn't say
>> that's an unimportant case. Granted, the webapp user wouldn't have
>> permission to run arbitrary queries in the first place.
>
> I thought as we have cancel_backend implemented (which this is a small
> extension of), the PGPROC roleid must be a spot-on match.
I read your email again. I thought common => meant "same base
roleid", not "the same roleid", so I thought role inheritance was
getting into this, which it isn't. Nevermind.
--
fdr
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2012-03-27 18:21:22 | Re: Cross-backend signals and administration (Was: Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role) |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-03-27 17:51:59 | Re: Cross-backend signals and administration (Was: Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role) |