From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ToDo: log plans of cancelled queries |
Date: | 2013-01-11 16:41:24 |
Message-ID: | 20130111164124.GD16126@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Pavel Stehule (pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> 2013/1/11 Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>:
> > We can send a 'cancel query', how about a 'report on query' which
> > returns the plan and perhaps whatever other stats are easily available?
>
> there is only one question - that POSIX signal we can use?
This would be a new protocol message, psql doesn't ever send any actual
process signals to the backend processes...
Or at least, that's how I was thinking it would be implemented, in an
ideal world. It's possible we could have some backend helper function
which a user could call on another connection to send a signal to the
first, after figuring out the pid, blah, blah.
Of course, I haven't gone and looked at how cancel query really works
under the hood, so I have no idea if this is at all possible. :)
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-01-11 16:52:33 | Re: ToDo: log plans of cancelled queries |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2013-01-11 16:38:29 | Version 4.10 of buildfarm client released. |