Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mar mar 27 14:38:47 -0300 2012: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Daniel Farina <dan...@heroku.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think the more important question is a policy question: do we want > >> it to work like this? It seems like a policy question that ought to > >> be left to the DBA, but we have no policy management framework for > >> DBAs to configure what they do or do not wish to allow. Still, if > >> we've decided it's OK to allow cancelling, I don't see any real reason > >> why this should be treated differently. > > > > Is there a hypothetical DBA that doesn't want a mere-mortal user to be > > able to signal one of their own backends to do "cancel query, rollback > > the transaction, then close the socket"? If so, why? > > Well, I guess if you have different people sharing the same user-ID, > you probably wouldn't want that. > > But maybe that's not an important case.
Isn't it the case that many web applications run under some common database user regardless of the underlying webapp user? I wouldn't say that's an unimportant case. Granted, the webapp user wouldn't have permission to run arbitrary queries in the first place. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers