Re: [HACKERS] Revised proposal for libpq and FE/BE protocol changes

>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Here is a revised proposal that takes into account the discussions
> > of the last few days. Any comments?
>
> Just one at the end
>
> [snip]
>
> > 4. The frontend may request cancellation of the current query by sending
> > a single byte of OOB (out-of-band) data. The contents of the data byte
> > are irrelevant, since the cancellation will be triggered by the associated
> > signal and not by the data itself. (But we should probably specify that
> > the byte be zero, in case we later think of a reason to have different
> > kinds of OOB messages.) There is no specific reply to this message.
> > If the backend does cancel a query, the query terminates with an ordinary
> > error message indicating that the query was cancelled.
>
> You didn't come right out and say it, but are you intending to support
> multiple queries within a connection? I gather not. Not that I'm
> suggesting that this be done, as it seems this would complicate the
> user's application and the backend. With only one possible OOB
> message, you can't tell it which query to cancel.
>
> Ocie Mitchell

Waves hand wildly... I know, I know!

All of them!

-dg

David Gould dg(at)illustra(dot)com 510.628.3783 or 510.305.9468
Informix Software (No, really) 300 Lakeside Drive Oakland, CA 94612
"(Windows NT) version 5.0 will build on a proven system architecture
and incorporate tens of thousands of bug fixes from version 4.0."
-- <http://www.microsoft.com/y2k.asp?A=7&B=5>