Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> Do you wan't to terminate it immediately or on next statement?
I want to have one backend terminate the transaction on another
backend as soon as practicable. If a query is active, it would be
best if it was canceled. It appears that if it is "idle in
transaction" there is a need to wait for the next request. It would
be a big plus for the backend requesting the cancellation to be able
to specify the SQLSTATE, message, etc., used by the other backend on
> You might want to check out SendProcSignal() et al.
Will take a look.
> Besides that I dont like the implementation very much, I think its
> generally a good idea...
OK. While browsing around, I'll try to think of an alternative
approach, but this is new territory for me -- I've been learning
about areas in the code at need so far....
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jeff Davis||Date: 2010-12-02 19:01:43|
|Subject: Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three|
|Previous:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2010-12-02 18:18:45|
|Subject: Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump|