| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: statement_timeout vs DECLARE CURSOR |
| Date: | 2021-09-27 19:40:39 |
| Message-ID: | 2767393.1632771639@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com> writes:
>> On Sep 27, 2021, at 10:42, Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com> wrote:
>> We've encountered some unexpected behavior with statement_timeout not cancelling a query in DECLARE CURSOR, but only if the DECLARE CURSOR is outside of a transaction:
> A bit more poking revealed the reason: The ON HOLD cursor's query is executed at commit time (which is, logically, not interruptible), but that's all wrapped in the single statement outside of a transaction.
Hmm ... seems like a bit of a UX failure. I wonder why we don't persist
such cursors before we get into the uninterruptible part of COMMIT.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Raymond Brinzer | 2021-09-28 13:24:35 | Nested Schemata, in a Standard-Compliant Way? |
| Previous Message | Christophe Pettus | 2021-09-27 18:10:19 | Re: statement_timeout vs DECLARE CURSOR |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-09-27 19:44:19 | Re: [BUG] failed assertion in EnsurePortalSnapshotExists() |
| Previous Message | Jacob Champion | 2021-09-27 19:40:28 | Re: Support for NSS as a libpq TLS backend |