| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-02-24 15:44:57 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] First experiences with Postgresql 7.0 |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2000-02-24 15:40:32 | RE: [HACKERS] Minor problems reloading dump in 7.0beta1 |