Re: Cancelling idle in transaction state

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I think this line of thinking is on the right track.  The server
>> should certainly not send back an immediate ERROR response, because
>> that will definitely confuse the client.  Of course, any subsequent
>> commands will report ERRORs until the client rolls back.  But it also
>> seems highly desirable for the server to send some sort of immediate,
>> asynchronous notification, so that a sufficiently smart client can
>> immediately report the error back to the user or take such other
>> action as it deems appropriate.
>
> If you must have that, send a NOTICE.

Ah ha! I missed that one. That's perfect.

> I don't actually see the point
> though.  If the client was as smart and well-coded as all that, it
> wouldn't be sitting on an open transaction in the first place.

Think about an interactive client. It's not the client's fault that
the user has chosen to begin a transaction and then sit there
cogitating, but the client would like to let the user know right away
that their current transaction is defunct.

...Robert