On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:22:08PM +0300, Oskari Saarenmaa wrote: > 24.03.2016, 18:03, Tom Lane kirjoitti: > >Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > >>I am not really in favor of half-fixing this. If we can't > >>conveniently wait until a dropped role is completely out of the > >>system, then I don't see a lot of point in trying to do it in the > >>limited cases where we can. If LEFT JOIN is the way to go, then, > >>blech, but, so be it. > > > >I concur. Let's put the left join(s) into those views and call it > >good. > > > >BTW, I think we would need the left joins even if we had interlocking > >in DROP, just to protect ourselves against race conditions. Remember > >that what pg_stat_activity shows is a snapshot, which might be more or > >less out of date compared to the catalog contents. > > Added my patch to the 2016-09 commitfest > (https://commitfest.postgresql.org/10/601/) as a bug fix as I thought not > showing all backends in pg_stat_activity is a bug. Any chance to get it in > 9.6?
Do we need a comment in the query explaining why a left join is needed, e.g. "Use LEFT JOIN in case the role has been dropped"? That wouldn't be obvious to me. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
