Hi Greg
2011/12/13 Greg Smith :
> On 12/11/2011 05:29 PM, Torello Querci wrote:
>>
>> I will try to adjust the patch and submit for the next Commit Fest if
>> this is ok for you.
>>
>
>
> I don't think we'll need this, it will take a bit to explain why though.
>
> First, thanks for returning this
On 12/11/2011 05:29 PM, Torello Querci wrote:
I will try to adjust the patch and submit for the next Commit Fest if
this is ok for you.
I don't think we'll need this, it will take a bit to explain why though.
First, thanks for returning this topic to discussion and keeping up with
all the
2011/12/6 Magnus Hagander :
> On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 23:32, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Noah Misch writes:
>>> On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 06:55:51AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
wrote:
> I see. What about passing this decision to DBA? I m
On 10/02/2011 05:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm with Noah on this. If allowing same-user cancels is enough to solve
95% or 99% of the real-world use cases, let's just do that.
And we're back full circle. This is basically where Josh Kuperschmidt
started in early 2010:
http://archives.postgresql
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 23:32, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
>> On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 06:55:51AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
>>> wrote:
I see. What about passing this decision to DBA? I mean a GUC
can_cancel_session =
Noah Misch writes:
> On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 06:55:51AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
>> wrote:
>>> I see. What about passing this decision to DBA? I mean a GUC
>>> can_cancel_session = user, dbowner (default is '' -- only superuser). You
Noah Misch writes:
>> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Tom Lane ?wrote:
>> >>> ISTM it would be reasonably non-controversial to allow users to issue
>> >>> pg_cancel_backend against other sessions logged in as the same userID.
>> >>> The question is whether to go further than that, and if so ho
On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 06:55:51AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
> wrote:
> > On 01-10-2011 17:44, Daniel Farina wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Tom Lane ?wrote:
> >>> ISTM it would be reasonably non-controversial to allow users
I like this idea
+1
Il giorno 02/ott/2011 12:56, "Robert Haas" ha
scritto:
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
> wrote:
>> On 01-10-2011 17:44, Daniel Farina wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
ISTM it would be reasonably non-contro
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
wrote:
> On 01-10-2011 17:44, Daniel Farina wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>
>>> ISTM it would be reasonably non-controversial to allow users to issue
>>> pg_cancel_backend against other sessions logged in
On 01-10-2011 17:44, Daniel Farina wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
ISTM it would be reasonably non-controversial to allow users to issue
pg_cancel_backend against other sessions logged in as the same userID.
The question is whether to go further than that, and if so how
"""
In *every* case -- and there are many -- where we've had people
express pain, this would have sufficed. Usually the problem is a
large index creation gone awry, or an automated backup process
blocking a schema change that has taken half the locks it needs, or
something like that -- all by the
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Kääriäinen Anssi
wrote:
> I would be a step in the right direction if the DB owner would see all queries
> to the DB in pg_stat_activity.
"All," including that of the superuser? I'd like to pass on that one, please.
In general, I feel there is this problem that on
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> ISTM it would be reasonably non-controversial to allow users to issue
> pg_cancel_backend against other sessions logged in as the same userID.
> The question is whether to go further than that, and if so how much.
In *every* case -- and there are
2011/10/1 Tom Lane :
> Daniel Farina writes:
>> This patch would appear(?) to have languished:
>> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=541
>
>> I'd really like to see it included. In the last comments of the
>> review, there seem to be problems in *terminate* backend, but even
>
Daniel Farina writes:
> This patch would appear(?) to have languished:
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=541
> I'd really like to see it included. In the last comments of the
> review, there seem to be problems in *terminate* backend, but even
> just pg_cancel_backend as n
This patch would appear(?) to have languished:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=541
I'd really like to see it included. In the last comments of the
review, there seem to be problems in *terminate* backend, but even
just pg_cancel_backend as non-superuser would be just a hug
17 matches
Mail list logo
