Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
 
> Do you wan't to terminate it immediately or on next statement?
 
I want to have one backend terminate the transaction on another
backend as soon as practicable.  If a query is active, it would be
best if it was canceled.  It appears that if it is "idle in
transaction" there is a need to wait for the next request.  It would
be a big plus for the backend requesting the cancellation to be able
to specify the SQLSTATE, message, etc., used by the other backend on
failure.
 
> You might want to check out SendProcSignal() et al.
 
Will take a look.
 
> Besides that I dont like the implementation very much, I think its
> generally a good idea...
 
OK.  While browsing around, I'll try to think of an alternative
approach, but this is new territory for me -- I've been learning
about areas in the code at need so far....
 
-Kevin

In response to

• Re: V3: Idle in transaction cancellation at 2010-12-02 14:57:18 from Andres Freund

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Jeff Davis	Date: 2010-12-02 19:01:43
	Subject: Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three
Previous:	From: Josh Berkus	Date: 2010-12-02 18:18:45
	Subject: Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump