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

Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming Replication integration

From: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming Replication integration
Date: 2010-03-02 00:46:22
Message-ID: 407d949e1003011646t48b41b44sc5fc610cacae34b9@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
josh, nobody is talking about it because it doesn't make sense. you could
only retry if it was the first query in the transaction and only if you
could prove there were no side-effects outside the database and then you
would have no reason to think the retry would be any more likely to work.

greg

On 1 Mar 2010 22:32, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:

On 2/28/10 7:12 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> However, I'd still like to hear from someone with the requ...
"dead end" as in "too hard to implement"?  Or for some other reason?

It's undeniable that auto-retry would be better from a user's
perspective than a user-visible cancel.  So if it's *reasonable* to
implement, I think we should be working on it.  I'm also very puzzled as
to why nobody else wants to even discuss it; it's like some wierd blackout.

--Josh Berkus


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
To make changes to your subs...

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Ed L.Date: 2010-03-02 00:49:44
Subject: Re: Hung postmaster (8.3.9)
Previous:From: Ed L.Date: 2010-03-02 00:36:40
Subject: Re: Hung postmaster (8.3.9)

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