Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Cancelling idle in transaction state

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Cc: Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, 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>
Subject: Re: Cancelling idle in transaction state
Date: 2010-01-13 13:43:06
Message-ID: 1263390186.26654.8589.camel@ebony (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, 2010-01-03 at 11:55 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: 
> On Fri, Jan 01, 2010 at 03:31:58PM -0500, Kris Jurka wrote:
> > The JDBC driver does want "cancel if active" behavior.  The JDBC API  
> > specifies Statement.cancel() where Statement is running one particular  
> > backend query.  So it really does want to cancel just that one query.  
> > Already this is tough because of the asynchronous nature of the cancel  
> > protocol and the inability to say exactly what should be cancelled.
> 
> I've looked in the JDBC documentation but I don't quickly see how they
> expect this to work with transactions. What is being proposed seems to
> me to be:
> 
> If statement active:
>    put transaction in aborted state
> If no statement active:
>    do nothing
> 
> However, I see that the documentation wants to be able to abort a
> *specific* statement, which is not being proposed here. Can that be
> implemented on top of the current proposal?

That would require Statement-level abort, which we don't have.

-- 
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Teodor SigaevDate: 2010-01-13 14:19:43
Subject: Bloom index
Previous:From: Michael MeskesDate: 2010-01-13 13:38:44
Subject: Re: ECPG patch causes warning

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group