Re: BackendKeyData is mandatory?
От | Jacob Champion |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BackendKeyData is mandatory? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAOYmi+nopSksm11tOAU_+KqoXxgyGyS97rQ8RY5OxcvKOhC=DQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BackendKeyData is mandatory? (Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>) |
Ответы |
Re: BackendKeyData is mandatory?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 1:36 AM Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl> wrote: > Okay, that sounds widely used enough to continue that we should > probably change the new PG18 behaviour of PQgetCancel and > PQcancelCreate like I suggested. Failing all psycopg2 connection > attempts against AWS its proxy service doesn't seem like something > we'd want to do. So that's 1) return an (empty) cancellation object even if the server has not sent a key, and 2) error out when trying to cancel with an empty object? That sounds reasonable to me. Are there any reading along who want us to continue sending an all-zeroes CancelRequest if the server has not sent a key? Personally, I don't feel a need to push for that without evidence that it's actually used, and both RDS Proxy and Cockroach [1] seem to fall in the "don't support cancellation at all" bucket. Thanks! --Jacob [1] https://github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/issues/32973
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: