Re: TerminateOtherDBBackends code comments inconsistency. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 09:10:52AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 2:58 AM Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 10:18:35AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 9:56 PM Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 3a9b18b309 didn't change the docs of pg_terminate_backend and whatever
> > > is mentioned w.r.t permissions in the doc of that function sounds
> > > valid for drop database force to me. Do you have any specific proposal
> > > in your mind?
> >
> > Something like the attached.
> 
> LGTM.
> 
> >  One could argue the function should also check
> > isBackgroundWorker and ignore even bgworkers that set proc->roleId, but I've
> > not done that.
> 
> What is the argument for ignoring such workers?

One of the proposed code comments says, "For bgworker authors, it's convenient
to be able to recommend FORCE if a worker is blocking DROP DATABASE
unexpectedly."  That argument is debatable, but I do think it applies equally
to bgworkers whether or not they set proc->roleId.