From: | "Gran Thyni" <goran(at)bildbasen(dot)se> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Byron Nikolaidis <byronn(at)insightdist(dot)com>, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, PostgreSQL-development <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Query cancel and OOB data |
Date: | 1998-05-19 12:29:50 |
Message-ID: | 35617B3E.63E82ED9@bildbasen.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Yea, I found that too, late last night, Section 6.14, page 332.
>
> I basically need some way to 'signal' the backend of a cancellation
> request. Polling the socket is not an option because it would impose
> too great a performance penalty. Maybe async-io on a read(), but that
> is not going to be very portable.
>
> I could pass the backend pid to the front end, and send a kill(SIG_URG)
> to that pid on a cancel, but the frontend can be running as a different
> user than the backend. Problem is, the only communcation channel is
> that unix domain socket.
>
> We basically need some way to get the attention of the backend,
> hopefully via some signal.
>
> Any ideas?
postmaster could be listening (adding to select()) on a "signal socket"
for cancel request and shot down its children on request.
how do we make such a scheme secure ??
terveiset,
--
---------------------------------------------
Göran Thyni, sysadm, JMS Bildbasen, Kiruna
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Cary B. O'Brien | 1998-05-19 12:47:10 | Cancell/OOB over a Unix Domain Socket |
Previous Message | Jose' Soares Da Silva | 1998-05-19 12:24:31 | pg_dump error |