From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BackendKeyData is mandatory? |
Date: | 2025-06-17 03:06:26 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwbWMrJ4piRGfceg2fQKwyx4FOk+jmU2xgbbN-=8oPNxZw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Monday, June 16, 2025, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
>
> My question is, BackendKeyData is mandatory or not. Currently
> Pgpool-II raises a fatal error if BackendKeyData is not sent before
> ReadyForQuery arrives. This is because without the message, frontend
> cannot send a CancelRequest message later on, as there's no secret
> key.
I wouldn’t expect a proxy to make a judgement here; but to simply forward
what does show up and otherwise stay silent. If there is proxy layer code
needed to deal with its absence ignoring the cancel attempt with a log
warning would be sufficient. Otherwise, the user has made their choices
and this is an optional feature in practice (though resorting to
pg_cancel_query make be required for truly hung processes).
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Yan Haibo | 2025-06-17 03:12:38 | 回复: 回复: 回复: Fix potential overflow risks from wcscpy and sprintf |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-06-17 02:58:04 | Re: pg_upgrade fails with an error "object doesn't exist" |