On 6/1/17 21:55, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-06-01 21:42:41 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> We should look at what the underlying problem is before we prohibit >> anything at a high level. > > I'm not sure there's any underlying issue here, except being in single > user mode.
My point is that we shouldn't be putting checks into DDL commands about single-user mode if the actual cause of the issue is in a lower-level system. Not all uses of a particular DDL command necessary use a latch, for example. Also, there could be other things that hit a latch that are reachable in single-user mode that we haven't found yet. So I think the check should either go somewhere in the latch code, or possibly in the libpqwalreceiver code. Or we make the latch code work so that the check-for-postmaster-death code becomes a noop in single-user mode. Suggestions? -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
