[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       postgresql-general
Subject:    Re: [HACKERS] Cancelling idle in transaction state
From:       Simon Riggs <simon () 2ndQuadrant ! com>
Date:       2009-12-31 15:58:45
Message-ID: 1262275125.19367.11248.camel () ebony
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thu, 2009-12-31 at 15:41 +0100, Joachim Wieland wrote:

> I still think that we should have three transaction cancel modes, one
> to cancel an idle transaction, another one to cancel a running query
> and a third one that just cancels the transaction regardless of it
> being idle or not. This last one is what you are implementing now, and
> it is what HS wants to do. 

pg_cancel_backend() is currently conditional on whether a statement is
active or not, so should really be called pg_cancel_if_active(). What
people want is an unconditional way to stop a transaction. I don't see
the need for 3 modes (and that has nothing to do with HS).

-- 
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]