From: | Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Ryan Mahoney <ryan(at)paymentalliance(dot)net>, Linh Luong <linh(dot)luong(at)computalog(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Why is it not using the other processor? |
Date: | 2001-07-08 03:46:52 |
Message-ID: | Pine.BSO.4.10.10107072343560.7004-100000@spider.pilosoft.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, 5 Jul 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ryan Mahoney <ryan(at)paymentalliance(dot)net> writes:
> > Re: killing a process from browser, I don't think what you're trying to do
> > is really possible.
>
> If the client-side code were programmed to send a Cancel request to the
> backend when the user loses interest, then the right things would
> happen. I am not sure how practical that is though; does the web server
> even find out about it when the user presses Stop in a typical browser?
> (If not, you can hardly expect Postgres to somehow intuit what happened
> two protocols away ;-).)
Webserver definitely finds out. (Socket gets closed by client). The real
question is, how does webserver signal this fact to a
CGI/mod_perl/jsp/whatever web application. For CGI, _i believe_ the
standard is that webserver will SIGHUP the application, and app can do
whatever cleanup it needs. For other interfaces, I really don't know.
-alex
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2001-07-08 08:38:23 | Re: A question multibye |
Previous Message | Taral | 2001-07-08 03:13:04 | Toast question |