From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for async support in libpq |
Date: | 1998-04-17 20:47:45 |
Message-ID: | 19999.892846065@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> You supply the indication to the backend, and I will see that the
> backend processes it properly.
You're on ;-)
Signaling the cancel request via OOB sounds reasonable, as long as
nothing else is using it and all the systems we care about support it.
(I see a couple of routines to support OOB data in
src/backend/libpq/pqcomm.c, but they don't seem to be called from
anywhere. Vestiges of an old protocol, perhaps?)
I still need to understand better what the backend will send back
in response to a cancel request, especially if it's idle by the
time the request arrives. Will that result in an asynchronous error
response of some sort? Do I need to make said response visible to
the frontend application? (Probably not ... it will have already
discovered that the query completed normally.)
How should cancellation interact with copy in/out?
These are mostly documentation issues, rather than stuff that directly
affects code in libpq, but we ought to nail it down.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-04-17 21:01:17 | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for async support in libpq |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-04-17 20:26:22 | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for async support in libpq |