| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Craig Ringer" <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | "Hannu Krosing" <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Kris Jurka" <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>,"James Pye" <lists(at)jwp(dot)name>, "Joachim Wieland" <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Cancelling idle in transaction state |
| Date: | 2009-12-30 14:54:47 |
| Message-ID: | 4B3B1557020000250002DA75@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> wrote:
> It might be kind of handy if I could getWarnings() on the
> connection object without blocking so I could call it before I
> executed a statement on the connection ... but that'd always
> introduce a race between transaction cancellation/timeout and
> statement execution, so code must always be prepared to handle
> timeout/cancellation related failure anyway.
+1 (I think)
If I'm understanding this, it sounds to me like it would be most
appropriate for the NOTICE to generate a warning at the connection
level and for the next request to throw an exception in the format
suggested by Heikki -- which I think is what Craig is suggesting.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-12-30 14:56:29 | Re: test/example does not support win32. |
| Previous Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2009-12-30 14:51:09 | Re: point_ops for GiST |