Re: Interessting problem - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jim C. Nasby
Subject Re: Interessting problem
Date
Msg-id 20030520150716.GM40542@flake.decibel.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Interessting problem  (ohp@pyrenet.fr)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 01:59:21PM +0200, ohp@pyrenet.fr wrote:
> The fact that the postgres user owns all the backend makes it impossible
> for ordinary users to kill their backend or have I missed something?
FWIW, DB2 gives the option of a function being 'fenced' or 'un-fenced'.
Un-fenced functions run in the database process, so if they do something
bad they can cause serious data corruption. Fenced functions are run in
a separate process, and using a separate uid. AFAIK, communication
between the two is done using IPC. The downside to fenced functions is
that they are slower, due to fork and IPC overhead (I don't remember if
DB2 will cache fence processes and re-use them or not).
-- 
Jim C. Nasby (aka Decibel!)                    jim@nasby.net
Member: Triangle Fraternity, Sports Car Club of America
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Calling external program from trigger
Next
From: Martijn van Oosterhout
Date:
Subject: Re: Feature suggestions (long)