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 Sigaev||Date: 2010-01-13 14:19:43|
|Subject: Bloom index|
|Previous:||From: Michael Meskes||Date: 2010-01-13 13:38:44|
|Subject: Re: ECPG patch causes warning|