On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
This whole discussion seems to be about making it easier to run SELECT
pg_cancel_backend(pid) FROM pg_stat_activity;. But that shouldn't be
made easier! If anything harder.
Indeed. I
On 5/22/15 3:08 PM, Eric Ridge wrote:
I find it annoying to have to specifically exclude pg_backend_pid() from
pg_stat_activity if I'm trying to kill a bunch of backends at once, and I can't
think of any reason why you'd ever want to call a pg_cancel_* function with
your own PID.
I'm just a
Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com writes:
On 5/22/15 3:08 PM, Eric Ridge wrote:
Rather than change the behavior of pg_cancel/terminate_backend(), why not
change pg_stat_activity to exclude the current session? Seems like showing
a row in pg_stat_activity for SELECT * FROM pg_stat_activity
On May 19, 2015, at 6:59 PM, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote:
I find it annoying to have to specifically exclude pg_backend_pid() from
pg_stat_activity if I'm trying to kill a bunch of backends at once, and I
can't think of any reason why you'd ever want to call a pg_cancel_*
On 05/22/2015 03:35 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-05-22 17:29:03 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 5/22/15 4:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com writes:
On 5/22/15 3:08 PM, Eric Ridge wrote:
Rather than change the behavior of pg_cancel/terminate_backend(), why not
change
On 2015-05-22 17:29:03 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 5/22/15 4:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com writes:
On 5/22/15 3:08 PM, Eric Ridge wrote:
Rather than change the behavior of pg_cancel/terminate_backend(), why not
change pg_stat_activity to exclude the current
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
This whole discussion seems to be about making it easier to run SELECT
pg_cancel_backend(pid) FROM pg_stat_activity;. But that shouldn't be
made easier! If anything harder.
Indeed. I find it hard to believe that there's a real problem here, and
I
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 4:51 PM Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote:
Interesting idea. I suspect that would be even more invasive than
modifying the functions though...
Here's the solution. I can't see how anyone could possibly disagree with
this... ;)
Change the sort order for
On 5/22/15 4:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com writes:
On 5/22/15 3:08 PM, Eric Ridge wrote:
Rather than change the behavior of pg_cancel/terminate_backend(), why not change
pg_stat_activity to exclude the current session? Seems like showing a row in
pg_stat_activity
2015-05-22 20:28 GMT+02:00 Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com:
On 5/21/15 7:12 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 8:46 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de
wrote:
I've a hard time believing it's actually a good idea to change this. It
pretty much seems to only be useful if
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote:
You and Andreas think it's fine as-is.
Tom and Jon Nelson maybe don't like it as-is, but won't break backwards
compatibility.
David Steele and I seem fine with breaking compat., not sure about
Fabrizio.
+1 to add a
On 5/21/15 7:12 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 8:46 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
I've a hard time believing it's actually a good idea to change this. It
pretty much seems to only be useful if you're doing unqualified SELECT
pg_cancel_backend(pid) FROM
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 8:46 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
I've a hard time believing it's actually a good idea to change this. It
pretty much seems to only be useful if you're doing unqualified SELECT
pg_cancel_backend(pid) FROM pg_stat_activity; type queries. I don't see
that
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 2:40 AM, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote:
On 5/19/15 9:19 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
We could add a second parameter to the current functions:
allow_own_pid DEFAULT false. To me that seems better than an
entirely separate set of functions.
On 5/20/15 1:40 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 5/19/15 9:19 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
We could add a second parameter to the current functions:
allow_own_pid DEFAULT false. To me that seems better than an
entirely separate set of functions.
+1 to add a second parameter to
David Steele da...@pgmasters.net writes:
+1. I agree that cancelling/killing your own process should not be the
default behavior.
I think backwards compatibility probably trumps that argument. I have
no objection to providing a different call that behaves this way, but
changing the behavior
Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com writes:
On 5/19/15 9:19 PM, FabrÃzio de Royes Mello wrote:
+1 to add a second parameter to current functions.
Instead of allow_own_pid, I went with skip_own_pid. I have the function
still returning true even when it skips it's own PID... that seems a bit
On May 20, 2015 6:43 AM, David Steele da...@pgmasters.net wrote:
On 5/20/15 1:40 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 5/19/15 9:19 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
We could add a second parameter to the current functions:
allow_own_pid DEFAULT false. To me that seems better than an
On 5/20/15 10:09 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
David Steele da...@pgmasters.net writes:
+1. I agree that cancelling/killing your own process should not be the
default behavior.
I think backwards compatibility probably trumps that argument. I have
no objection to providing a different call that
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I think backwards compatibility probably trumps that argument. I have
no objection to providing a different call that behaves this way, but
changing the behavior of existing applications will face a *much*
higher barrier to
On 5/20/15 8:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com writes:
On 5/19/15 9:19 PM, FabrÃzio de Royes Mello wrote:
+1 to add a second parameter to current functions.
Instead of allow_own_pid, I went with skip_own_pid. I have the function
still returning true even when it
Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com writes:
On 5/20/15 6:56 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-05-20 18:48:59 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
and generally if you want to terminate the connection there's easier
ways to do that then SELECT pg_terminate_backend(pg_backend_pid()).
Which would be what
On 2015-05-20 18:48:59 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
and generally if you want to terminate the connection there's easier
ways to do that then SELECT pg_terminate_backend(pg_backend_pid()).
Which would be what exactly? Say, you're inside a security definer
function.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
On 5/20/15 6:56 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-05-20 18:48:59 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
and generally if you want to terminate the connection there's easier
ways to do that then SELECT pg_terminate_backend(pg_backend_pid()).
Which would be what exactly? Say, you're inside a security definer
On 2015-05-20 20:38:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com writes:
On 5/20/15 6:56 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-05-20 18:48:59 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
and generally if you want to terminate the connection there's easier
ways to do that then SELECT
On 5/20/15 11:15 AM, Jon Nelson wrote:
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I think backwards compatibility probably trumps that argument. I have
no objection to providing a different call that behaves this way, but
changing the behavior of existing applications
Jim Nasby wrote:
BTW, is there a reason we're putting function SQL in that file other than it
was a convenient place?
Probably not. I've looked at that file wondering the same thing a
number of times ...
--
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development,
On 5/19/15 9:19 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
We could add a second parameter to the current functions:
allow_own_pid DEFAULT false. To me that seems better than an
entirely separate set of functions.
+1 to add a second parameter to current functions.
Instead of
On 2015-05-20 00:59, Jim Nasby wrote:
I find it annoying to have to specifically exclude pg_backend_pid() from
pg_stat_activity if I'm trying to kill a bunch of backends at once, and
I can't think of any reason why you'd ever want to call a pg_cancel_*
function with your own PID.
That's a
On 5/19/15 6:30 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Marko Tiikkaja ma...@joh.to
mailto:ma...@joh.towrote:
On 2015-05-20 00:59, Jim Nasby wrote:
I find it annoying to have to specifically exclude
pg_backend_pid() from
pg_stat_activity if I'm
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Marko Tiikkaja ma...@joh.to wrote:
On 2015-05-20 00:59, Jim Nasby wrote:
I find it annoying to have to specifically exclude pg_backend_pid() from
pg_stat_activity if I'm trying to kill a bunch of backends at once, and
I can't think of any reason why you'd
Em terça-feira, 19 de maio de 2015, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com
escreveu:
On 5/19/15 6:30 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Marko Tiikkaja ma...@joh.to
mailto:ma...@joh.towrote:
On 2015-05-20 00:59, Jim Nasby wrote:
I find it annoying to have
I find it annoying to have to specifically exclude pg_backend_pid() from
pg_stat_activity if I'm trying to kill a bunch of backends at once, and
I can't think of any reason why you'd ever want to call a pg_cancel_*
function with your own PID.
Any objections to modifying those functions so
33 matches
Mail list logo
