> guilla...@lelarge.info wrote: > > This won't answer your question
It has been answered now. See my "case closed" email here: www.postgresql.org/message-id/B33C40D9-2B79-44C7-B527-86E672BEA71A%40yugabyte.com > …but still… I usually really like your scripts, it's nicely written, but this > part seems really weird to me: > >> b...@yugabyte.com wrote: >> >> -- No error >> do $body$ >> declare >> p int not null := 0; >> begin >> for p in ( >> select pid >> from pg_stat_activity >> where backend_type = 'client backend' >> and pid <> pg_backend_pid()) >> loop >> perform pg_terminate_backend(p); >> end loop; >> end; >> $body$; > > While your script works great, I'm wondering why you don't write it this way: > > SELECT pg_terminate_backend(pid) FROM pg_stat_activity > WHERE backend_type = 'client backend' AND pid <> pg_backend_pid(); > > As it is less code, it's quicker to understand what it does. Well, yes… I have often been accused of being anally fixated on details—and of verbosity. This is just the old chestnut that a "select" statement shouldn't have side effects. "pg_terminate_backend(p)" ought, by the book, to be a procedure. But I suppose that it dates from the time when PG had only user-defined functions (and no shipped procedures). And "perform" makes a function feel to me to be a bit more like a procedure than just selecting it feels. Others might well disagree…
