From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
Cc: | Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, James Pye <lists(at)jwp(dot)name>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Cancelling idle in transaction state |
Date: | 2010-01-13 13:43:06 |
Message-ID: | 1263390186.26654.8589.camel@ebony |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2010-01-03 at 11:55 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 01, 2010 at 03:31:58PM -0500, Kris Jurka wrote:
> > The JDBC driver does want "cancel if active" behavior. The JDBC API
> > specifies Statement.cancel() where Statement is running one particular
> > backend query. So it really does want to cancel just that one query.
> > Already this is tough because of the asynchronous nature of the cancel
> > protocol and the inability to say exactly what should be cancelled.
>
> I've looked in the JDBC documentation but I don't quickly see how they
> expect this to work with transactions. What is being proposed seems to
> me to be:
>
> If statement active:
> put transaction in aborted state
> If no statement active:
> do nothing
>
> However, I see that the documentation wants to be able to abort a
> *specific* statement, which is not being proposed here. Can that be
> implemented on top of the current proposal?
That would require Statement-level abort, which we don't have.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2010-01-13 14:19:43 | Bloom index |
Previous Message | Michael Meskes | 2010-01-13 13:38:44 | Re: ECPG patch causes warning |