Re: On login trigger: take three
От | Pavel Stehule |
---|---|
Тема | Re: On login trigger: take three |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFj8pRDiZ6=_35vB7D9PLtb_+rrxiCiP3NovtpZpB8NxUWPb+g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: On login trigger: take three (Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru>) |
Ответы |
Re: On login trigger: take three
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
po 14. 9. 2020 v 17:53 odesílatel Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru> napsal:
On 14.09.2020 17:34, Pavel Stehule wrote:If we introduce buildin session trigger , we should to define what is the session. Your design is much more related to the process than to session. So the correct name should be "process_start" trigger, or some should be different. I think there are two different events - process_start, and session_start, and there should be two different event triggers. Maybe the name "session_start" is just ambiguous and should be used with a different name.
I agree.
I can rename trigger to backend_start or process_start or whatever else.
Creating a good name can be hard - it is not called for any process - so maybe "user_backend_start" ?
5. I do not quite understand your concern. If I define trigger
procedure which is blocked (for example as in your example), then I can
use pg_cancel_backend to interrupt execution of login trigger and
superuser can login. What should be changed here?You cannot run pg_cancel_backend, because you cannot open a new session. There is a cycle.
It is always possible to login by disabling startup triggers using disable_session_start_trigger GUC:
psql "dbname=postgres options='-c disable_session_start_trigger=true'"
sure, I know. Just this behavior can be a very unpleasant surprise, and my question is if it can be fixed. Creating custom libpq variables can be the stop for people that use pgAdmin.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: