Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Add non-blocking version of PQcancel

From: Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Denis Laxalde <denis(dot)laxalde(at)dalibo(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "Gregory Stark (as CFM)" <stark(dot)cfm(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jelte Fennema <Jelte(dot)Fennema(at)microsoft(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Add non-blocking version of PQcancel
Date: 2024-03-28 17:13:56
Message-ID: CAGECzQRkiiGQC+ne57ZhZv-dcQ3k5Ey4BjwXpiUKsWQ=9vftfg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 at 17:43, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> Hah, you're right, I can reproduce with a smaller timeout, and using SET
> LOCAL works as a fix. If we're doing that, why not reduce the timeout
> to 1ms? We don't need to wait extra 9ms ...

I think we don't really want to make the timeout too short. Otherwise
the query might get cancelled before we push any query down to the
FDW. I guess that means that for some slow machines even 10ms is not
enough to make the test do the intended purpose. I'd keep it at 10ms,
which seems long enough for normal systems, while still being pretty
short.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2024-03-28 17:33:30 Re: To what extent should tests rely on VACUUM ANALYZE?
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2024-03-28 17:04:54 Re: To what extent should tests rely on VACUUM ANALYZE?