| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | "Nagaura, Ryohei" <nagaura(dot)ryohei(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, "Jamison, Kirk" <k(dot)jamison(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "AYahorau(at)ibagroup(dot)eu" <AYahorau(at)ibagroup(dot)eu>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "MikalaiKeida(at)ibagroup(dot)eu" <MikalaiKeida(at)ibagroup(dot)eu> |
| Subject: | Re: Timeout parameters |
| Date: | 2019-03-13 17:13:19 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYV2B5+fe3oxRrR4hLgZDyPeBCLSyMwCdfvf_jqsc296A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 2:05 AM Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
> Also, I do not see the downside of sending a cancel query before severing
> the connection. If it is not processed, too bad, but if it is then it is
> for the better.
If the network connection is dead, which is the situation the patch
intends to detect, then PQcancel() isn't going to work, but it might
still hang for a period of time or forever. That seems like a pretty
major downside.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-03-13 17:15:45 | Re: hyrax vs. RelationBuildPartitionDesc |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2019-03-13 17:11:01 | Re: ToDo: show size of partitioned table |