| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, James Pye <lists(at)jwp(dot)name>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cancelling idle in transaction state |
| Date: | 2009-12-31 15:58:45 |
| Message-ID: | 1262275125.19367.11248.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2009-12-31 at 15:41 +0100, Joachim Wieland wrote:
> I still think that we should have three transaction cancel modes, one
> to cancel an idle transaction, another one to cancel a running query
> and a third one that just cancels the transaction regardless of it
> being idle or not. This last one is what you are implementing now, and
> it is what HS wants to do.
pg_cancel_backend() is currently conditional on whether a statement is
active or not, so should really be called pg_cancel_if_active(). What
people want is an unconditional way to stop a transaction. I don't see
the need for 3 modes (and that has nothing to do with HS).
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2009-12-31 16:00:58 | Re: PATCH: Add hstore_to_json() |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-12-31 15:11:20 | Re: Serializable Isolation without blocking |