Re: Cancelling idle in transaction state

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Joachim Wieland
Тема Re: Cancelling idle in transaction state
Дата
Msg-id dc7b844e1001061337s7791d51dw19445f71f39cda09@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Cancelling idle in transaction state  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Ответы Re: Cancelling idle in transaction state  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> CancelRequest's behaviour currently equates to SIGINT, so
> processCancelRequest() can only use SIGINT if SIGINT's behaviour remains
> same.
>
> I would recommend we make SIGINT do cancel-anything, and handle
> everything else via SIGUSR1, including CancelRequest.

Actually, now that I look into it, if we wanted to send SIGUSR1 with a
reason to a backend from within postmaster (where
processCancelRequest() lives), we'd need to have shared memory access
in postmaster which we have not.

So the easiest way would be to keep SIGINTs behavior (cancel running
statements, not idle transactions) and allow cancellation of idle
transactions only via SQL but not via command line.

Other ideas?


Joachim


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Magnus Hagander
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: win32 socket definition
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: win32 socket definition