Le mer. 14 sept. 2022 à 00:35, Bryn Llewellyn <b...@yugabyte.com> a écrit :
> > *guilla...@lelarge.info <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 <b...@yugabyte.com> wrote:* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *-- No errordo $body$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. > Oh, OK, looks like a good reason to me. I will probably still do the quick SELECT, but I understand your view on it. > "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… > -- Guillaume.
