Sent from my iPad
On 18-Feb-2013, at 22:38, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:33:26PM +0530, Atri Sharma wrote: >>>> While your threads are executing, your query can't be cancelled -- >>>> only a hard kill will take the database down. If you're ok with that >>>> risk, then go for it. If you're not, then I'd thinking about >>>> sendinging the bytea through a protocol to a threaded processing >>>> server running outside of the database. More work and slower >>>> (protocol overhead), but much more robust. >>> >>> You can see the approach of not calling any PG-specific routines from >>> theads here: >>> >>> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Parallel_Query_Execution#Approaches >> >> >> Is there any way to locally synchronise the threads in my code,and >> send the requests to the PostgreSQL backend one at a time? Like a waiting >> queue in my code? > > Is this from the client code? That is easy from libpq using > asynchronous queries. > > Actually, I haven't yet faced any such scenario.I was just thinking of all the possibilities that can happen in this case.Hehehe If we want to do this from a function in PostgreSQL itself, would a local synchronisation mechanism work? Regards, Atri -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
