Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Shouldn't we at least make it fail with EINVAL if "who" doesn't match
>> whichever semantics this code is able to implement?
> Yeah, we only ever call it asking for our own process, but I guess we
> might at some point in the future change that, so it can't hurt.. Want
> me to do it, or will you?
Please do, I'm going to bed ...
regards, tom lane