On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > ISTM it would be reasonably non-controversial to allow users to issue > pg_cancel_backend against other sessions logged in as the same userID. > The question is whether to go further than that, and if so how much.
In *every* case -- and there are many -- where we've had people express pain, this would have sufficed. Usually the problem is a large index creation gone awry, or an automated backup process blocking a schema change that has taken half the locks it needs, or something like that -- all by the same role that is under control of the folks feeling distress. If this minimal set is uncontroversial, I would like to see that much committed and then spend some time hand-wringing on whether to extend it. If one does want to extend it, I think role inheritance makes the most sense: a child role should be able to cancel its parent role's queries, and not vice-versa. Since one can use SET ROLE in this case anyway to basically act on behalf on that role, I think that, too, should be uncontroversial. -- fdr -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
