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
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
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
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
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:58 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
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
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
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
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 04:42:07PM -0700, Daniel Farina wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 04:14:03PM -0700, Daniel Farina wrote:
I imagine the problem is a race condition whereby a pid might be
reused by another process owned
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com writes:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
But actually I don't see what you hope to gain from such a change,
even if it can be made to work. Anyone who can
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com wrote:
Okay, well, I believe there is a race in handling common
administrative signals that *might* possibly matter. In the past,
pg_cancel_backend was superuser only, which is a lot like saying only
available to people who can
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 04:14:03PM -0700, Daniel Farina 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.
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 04:14:03PM -0700, Daniel Farina 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
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com wrote:
Hmm. Well, here's a patch that implements exactly that, I think,
That version had some screws loose due to some editor snafus.
Hopefully all better.
--
fdr
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.
I imagine the problem is a race condition whereby a pid might be
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
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
Shall we just do everything using the
MyCancelKey (which I think could just be called SessionKey,
SessionSecret, or even just Session) as to ensure we have no case
of mistaken identity? Or does that end up being
Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com writes:
The way MyCancelKey is checked now is backwards, in my mind. It seems
like it would be better checked by the receiving PID (one can use a
check/recheck also, if so inclined). Is there a large caveat to that?
You mean, other than the fact that kill(2)
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com writes:
The way MyCancelKey is checked now is backwards, in my mind. It seems
like it would be better checked by the receiving PID (one can use a
check/recheck also, if so inclined). Is there
Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com writes:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
But actually I don't see what you hope to gain from such a change,
even if it can be made to work. Anyone who can do kill(SIGINT) can
do kill(SIGKILL), say --- so you have to be able
19 matches
Mail list logo
