On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mar mar 27 14:38:47 -0300 2012:
>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Daniel Farina <daniel@heroku.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> I think the more important question is a policy question: do we want
>> >> it to work like this? It seems like a policy question that ought to
>> >> be left to the DBA, but we have no policy management framework for
>> >> DBAs to configure what they do or do not wish to allow. Still, if
>> >> we've decided it's OK to allow cancelling, I don't see any real reason
>> >> why this should be treated differently.
>> >
>> > 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?
>>
>> Well, I guess if you have different people sharing the same user-ID,
>> you probably wouldn't want that.
>>
>> But maybe that's not an important case.
>
> Isn't it the case that many web applications run under some common
> database user regardless of the underlying webapp user?
Yes.
> 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.
Right. That's why I'm thinking maybe it doesn't matter.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
