| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
| Cc: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Function to kill backend |
| Date: | 2004-04-05 14:05:11 |
| Message-ID: | 10816.1081173911@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> writes:
>>> In this case, SIGINT (query cancel) will not help, because
>>> all locks held by the transaction will still be held.
>>
>> Wrong.
> Really?
[ experiments... ] My apologies --- you are correct about the present
behavior. If a SIGINT arrives while waiting for client input, it's just
dropped on the floor. The locks *will* be dropped if the SIGINT arrives
during actual query processing.
It strikes me that this is incorrect behavior, at least for the case
where the client has a transaction block open. It'd be better to define
the interrupt as "transaction cancel".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-04-05 14:16:29 | Evening in NYC |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-04-05 12:53:46 | Re: Solaris initdb fails: shmmax tweak alternative? |