On 2017-06-22 11:49:47 +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 11:04:34 -0400 > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Yugo Nagata <nag...@sraoss.co.jp> wrote: > > > I have found that we can cancel/terminate autovacuum launchers and > > > background worker processes by pg_cancel/terminate_backend function. > > > I'm wondering this behavior is not expected and if not I want to fix it. > > > > I think it is expected. Even if we blocked it, those processes have > > to cope gracefully with SIGTERM, because anyone with access to the OS > > user can kill them that way by hand. > > I agree that we can kill theses processes by the OS command. However, > It seems to me that pg_{cancel,terminate}_backend don't need to be able to > kill processes except for client backends because we can do same thing by > the OS command if necessary, and acutually these functions cannot kill > most other processes, for example, background writer. Are the autovacuum > launcher and background worker special for these functions?
I strongly disagree with this - I think it's quite useful to be able to kill things via SQL that can hold lock on database objects. I'm not seeing which problem would be solved by prohibiting this? - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers