Re: Cancelling idle in transaction state

Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On Sun, 2009-12-06 at 07:58 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Thanks. Looks like good input. With the further clarification that we
>> use NOTIFY it seems a solution is forming.

> If we use notify, then "the sufficiently smart client" (tm)  should
> probably declared that it is waiting for such notify , no ?

We are using NOTICE, not NOTIFY, assuming that we use anything at all
(which I still regard as unnecessary).  Please stop injecting confusion
into the discussion.
        regards, tom lane