Re: Cross-backend signals and administration (Was: Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Daniel Farina
Subject Re: Cross-backend signals and administration (Was: Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role)
Date
Msg-id CAAZKuFbmP7VXNLKA3KR2OMoh9M2N44gC0XTwHjq=yt_ZNUgxEQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Cross-backend signals and administration (Was: Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role)  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Cross-backend signals and administration (Was: Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role)  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
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?

--
fdr


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: 9.2 commitfest closure (was Command Triggers, v16)
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Cross-backend signals and administration (Was: Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role)