| 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 16:17:02 |
| Message-ID: | 21988.951409022@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <e99re41(at)DoCS(dot)UU(dot)SE> writes:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
> Do I have to call PQendcopy() is the question.
Yes, but only after the backend sends the usual copy termination
message. The cancel request doesn't affect the protocol state machine
nor the app's interaction with libpq in the slightest. It's just a side
communication to the backend ("Psst! I'd really appreciate it if we
could wrap this up sooner rather than later.")
For COPY IN, you want to stop sending data lines and send a terminator,
then PQendcopy() in the usual way.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-02-24 16:18:23 | Re: [GENERAL] AW: [HACKERS] TRANSACTIONS |
| Previous Message | Lamar Owen | 2000-02-24 16:13:51 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] First experiences with Postgresql 7.0 |