Re: [HACKERS] Re: Cross-backend signals and administration (Was: Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role)

2012-03-27 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 03:17:36AM +0100, Greg Stark wrote: I may be forgetting something obvious here but is there even a function to send an interrupt signal? That would trigger the same behaviour that a user hitting C-c would trigger which would only be handled at the next

[HACKERS] Re: Cross-backend signals and administration (Was: Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role)

2012-03-26 Thread Greg Stark
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Hrm, I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. Me: This mechanism hasn't been tested enough, and may still have nasty bugs. You: Then let's invent some entirely new mechanism. I'm not seeing how that responds to the

[HACKERS] Re: Cross-backend signals and administration (Was: Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role)

2012-03-18 Thread Noah Misch
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 05:28:11PM -0700, Daniel Farina wrote: Noah offered me these comments: This patch still changes the policy for pg_terminate_backend(), and it does not fix other SIGINT senders like processCancelRequest() and ProcSleep(). ?If you're concerned about PID-reuse races,