On Sun, 2009-12-06 at 07:58 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Sat, 2009-12-05 at 18:13 -0700, James Pye wrote: > > On Dec 5, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > > ... > > > > I'm not volunteering here, but having worked with the protocol, I do have a > > suggestion: > > 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 ? That would mean, that it should have issued either "LISTEN CANCEL_IDLE_TRX_<pid>" or with the new payload enabled NOTIFY just "LISTEN CANCEL_IDLE_TRX" and then the NOTIFY would include the pid of rolled back backend and possibly some other extra info. Otoh, we could also come up with something that looks like a NOTIFY from client end, but is sent only to one connection that is canceled instead of all listeners. -- Hannu Krosing http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Scalability and Availability Services, Consulting and Training -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
