On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 07:58:39AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 12:52:19AM +0300, Kirill Reshke wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 at 08:53, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>>> The thing is that you cannot rely on a lookup of the backend type for
>>> the error information, or you open yourself to letting the caller of
>>> pg_cancel_backend or pg_terminate_backend know if a backend is
>>> controlled by a superuser or if a backend is an autovacuum worker.
>>
>> Good catch. Thanks. I think we need to update the error message to not
>> leak backend type info.
>
> Yep, that's necessary I am afraid.
Isn't it relatively easy to discover this same information today via
pg_stat_progress_vacuum? That has the following code:
/* Value available to all callers */
values[0] = Int32GetDatum(beentry->st_procpid);
values[1] = ObjectIdGetDatum(beentry->st_databaseid);
I guess I'm not quite following why we are worried about leaking whether a
backend is an autovacuum worker.
>>> The choice of pg_signal_autovacuum is a bit inconsistent, as well,
>>> because autovacuum workers operate like regular backends. This name
>>> can also be confused with the autovacuum launcher.
>>
>> Ok. What would be a good choice? Is `pg_signal_autovacuum_worker` good
>> enough?
>
> Sounds fine to me. Perhaps others have an opinion about that?
WFM
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
