Re: Cancelling idle in transaction state

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, James Pye <lists(at)jwp(dot)name>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Cancelling idle in transaction state
Date: 2009-12-06 15:23:49
Message-ID: 23501.1260113029@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-12-06 15:26:48 Re: Allowing DML RULEs that produce Read Only actions during RO xacts
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-12-06 15:21:14 Re: PageIndexTupleDelete