From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | James Pye <lists(at)jwp(dot)name>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Cancelling idle in transaction state |
Date: | 2009-12-06 03:15:24 |
Message-ID: | 8985.1260069324@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I think this line of thinking is on the right track. The server
> should certainly not send back an immediate ERROR response, because
> that will definitely confuse the client. Of course, any subsequent
> commands will report ERRORs until the client rolls back. But it also
> seems highly desirable for the server to send some sort of immediate,
> asynchronous notification, so that a sufficiently smart client can
> immediately report the error back to the user or take such other
> action as it deems appropriate.
If you must have that, send a NOTICE. I don't actually see the point
though. If the client was as smart and well-coded as all that, it
wouldn't be sitting on an open transaction in the first place.
> Currently, it appears that the only messages that the server can send
> back asynchronously are ParameterStatus and NotificationResponse.
Using either of those is completely inappropriate.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-12-06 03:23:53 | Re: Cancelling idle in transaction state |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-12-06 01:48:18 | Re: Cancelling idle in transaction state |