From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-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 02:17:36 |
Message-ID: | CAM-w4HPKRADfHYxTZQMmgsxbe0tggg69cNikw-QFGk1_JFuBgA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Hrm, I think we're talking at cross-purposes here.
>
> Me: "This mechanism hasn't been tested enough, and may still have nasty bugs."
>
> You: "Then let's invent some entirely new mechanism."
>
> I'm not seeing how that responds to the concern.
I assume the intention was that the "entirely new mechanism" would be
a less risky one.
I may be forgetting something obvious here but is there even a
function to send an interrupt signal? That would trigger the same
behaviour that a user hitting C-c would trigger which would only be
handled at the next CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS which seems like it would be
non-controversial and iirc we don't currently have a function to do
this for other connections the user may have if he doesn't have access
to the original terminal and doesn't have raw shell access to run
arbitrary commands.
--
greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2012-03-27 02:20:42 | Re: Speed dblink using alternate libpq tuple storage |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-03-27 01:11:21 | Re: Command Triggers patch v18 |