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

From Greg Stark
Subject Re: Cross-backend signals and administration (Was: Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role)
Date
Msg-id CAM-w4HPKRADfHYxTZQMmgsxbe0tggg69cNikw-QFGk1_JFuBgA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Cross-backend signals and administration (Was: Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Re: Cross-backend signals and administration (Was: Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Hrm, I think we're talking at cross-purposes here.
>
> Me: "This mechanism hasn't been tested enough, and may still have nasty bugs."
>
> You: "Then let's invent some entirely new mechanism."
>
> I'm not seeing how that responds to the concern.

I assume the intention was that the "entirely new mechanism" would be
a less risky one.

I may be forgetting something obvious here but is there even a
function to send an interrupt signal? That would trigger the same
behaviour that a user hitting C-c would trigger which would only be
handled at the next CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS which seems like it would be
non-controversial and iirc we don't currently have a function to do
this for other connections the user may have if he doesn't have access
to the original terminal and doesn't have raw shell access to run
arbitrary commands.

-- 
greg


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Command Triggers patch v18
Next
From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Date:
Subject: Re: Speed dblink using alternate libpq tuple storage