On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 09:10:52AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 2:58 AM Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 10:18:35AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 9:56 PM Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > > > > > 3a9b18b309 didn't change the docs of pg_terminate_backend and whatever > > > is mentioned w.r.t permissions in the doc of that function sounds > > > valid for drop database force to me. Do you have any specific proposal > > > in your mind? > > > > Something like the attached. > > LGTM. > > > One could argue the function should also check > > isBackgroundWorker and ignore even bgworkers that set proc->roleId, but I've > > not done that. > > What is the argument for ignoring such workers?
One of the proposed code comments says, "For bgworker authors, it's convenient to be able to recommend FORCE if a worker is blocking DROP DATABASE unexpectedly." That argument is debatable, but I do think it applies equally to bgworkers whether or not they set proc->roleId.
