From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Jacob Champion <pchampion(at)vmware(dot)com>, "Jelte(dot)Fennema(at)microsoft(dot)com" <Jelte(dot)Fennema(at)microsoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Add non-blocking version of PQcancel |
Date: | 2022-03-25 19:34:50 |
Message-ID: | 3457746.1648236890@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Well, that's a fair point, but it's somewhat orthogonal to the one I'm
> making, which is that a non-blocking version of function X might be
> expected to share code or at least functionality with X itself. Having
> something that is named in a way that implies asynchrony without other
> differences but which is actually different in other important ways is
> no good.
Yeah. We need to choose a name for these new function(s) that is
sufficiently different from "PQcancel" that people won't expect them
to behave exactly the same as that does. I lack any good ideas about
that, how about you?
>> Yeah, I don't think it's anywhere near fully baked yet. On the other
>> hand, we do have a couple of weeks left.
> We do?
Um, you did read the psql-release discussion about setting the feature
freeze deadline, no?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2022-03-25 19:42:38 | Re: pg14 psql broke \d datname.nspname.relname |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-03-25 19:32:23 | Re: [PATCH] Enable SSL library detection via PQsslAttribute |