On Sat, 2010-02-13 at 22:37 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> On a related note I would also like to get rid of the restriction that
> a normal query cancellation will only be done if no subtransactions
> are stacked.
> But I guess its too late for that? (I have a patch ready, some cleanup
> would be needed)
> The latter works by:
> - adding a explicit error code (which should be done regardless of
> - avoiding to catch such error at a few places (plperl, plpython)
> - recursively aborting the subtransactions once the mainloop is
> - relying on the fact that the cancellation signal will get resent
> - possibly escalating to a FATAL if nothing happens after a certain
> number of tries
Such an action needs to have a good, clear theoretical explanation with
it to show that the interaction with savepoints is a good one.
I toyed with the idea of a new level between ERROR and FATAL to allow
ERRORs to be handled by savepoints still in all cases.
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Greg Smith||Date: 2010-02-15 08:47:18|
|Subject: Re: [FWD] About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal"
|Previous:||From: Andres Freund||Date: 2010-02-15 08:36:31|
|Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Speed up CREATE DATABASE by deferring the fsyncs until after|