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

Re: [HACKERS] Changes in 7.0

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Changes in 7.0
Date: 2000-02-24 15:42:03
Message-ID: 21685.951406923@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <e99re41(at)DoCS(dot)UU(dot)SE> writes:
>> Allow ^C to cancel COPY command (Massimo)

> That's cool, but if you look closely, psql doesn't do that (anymore). :(
> Is it safe to send PQcancelRequest in a copy state and then just forget
> about it? What's the correct behaviour?

For a COPY OUT (from the backend), the correct behavior is same as for
non-copy state: fire off the cancel request and then forget about it.
If the backend decides to honor the request then it will terminate the
copy in the usual way.  For a COPY IN, it's up to you to stop sending
data...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2000-02-24 15:44:57
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] First experiences with Postgresql 7.0
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2000-02-24 15:40:32
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Minor problems reloading dump in 7.0beta1

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