On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Daniel Farina <dan...@heroku.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 01:38 -0700, Daniel Farina wrote: >>>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Daniel Farina <dan...@heroku.com> wrote: >>>> >> Parallel to pg_cancel_backend, it'd be nice to allow the user to just >>>> >> outright kill a backend that they own (politely, with a SIGTERM), >>>> >> aborting any transactions in progress, including the idle transaction, >>>> >> and closing the socket. >>>> > >>>> > +1 >>>> >>>> Here's a patch implementing the simple version, with no more guards >>>> against signal racing than have been seen previously. The more >>>> elaborate variants to close those races is being discussed in a >>>> parallel thread, but I thought I'd get this simple version out there. >>> >>> Review: >>> >>> After reading through the threads, it looks like there was no real >>> objection to this approach -- pid recycling is not something we're >>> concerned about. >>> >>> I think you're missing a doc update though, in func.sgml: >>> >>> "For the less restrictive <function>pg_cancel_backend</>, the role of an >>> active backend can be found from >>> the <structfield>usename</structfield> column of the >>> <structname>pg_stat_activity</structname> view." >>> >>> Also, high-availability.sgml makes reference to pg_cancel_backend(), and >>> it might be worthwhile to add an "...and pg_terminate_backend()" there. >>> >>> Other than that, it looks good to me. >> >> Good comments. Patch attached to address the doc issues. The only >> iffy thing is that the paragraph "For the less restrictive..." I have >> opted to remove in its entirely. I think the documents are already >> pretty clear about the same-user rule, and I'm not sure if this is the >> right place for a crash-course on attributes in pg_stat_activity (but >> maybe it is). >> >> "...and pg_terminate_backend" seems exactly right. >> >> And I think now that the system post-patch doesn't have such a strange >> contrast between the ability to send SIGINT vs. SIGTERM, such a >> contrast may not be necessary. >> >> I'm also not sure what the policy is about filling paragraphs in the >> manual. I filled one, which increases the sgml churn a bit. git >> (show|diff) --word-diff helps clean it up. > > I went ahead and committed this. > > I kinda think we should back-patch this into 9.2. It doesn't involve > a catalog change, and would make the behavior consistent between the > two releases, instead of changing in 9.1 and then changing again in > 9.2. Thoughts?
+1. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
