Josh Berkus wrote: >> That is exactly the core idea I was trying to suggest in my rambling >> message. Just that small additional bit of information transmitted and >> published to the master via that route, and it's possible to optimize >> this problem in a way not available now. And it's a way that I believe >> will feel more natural to some users who may not be well served by any >> of the existing tuning possibilities. > > Well, if both you and Tom think it would be relatively easy (or at least > easier that continuing to pursue query cancel troubleshooting), then > please start coding it. It was always a possible approach, we just > collectively thought that query cancel would be easier.
You still need query cancels. A feedback loop just makes it happen less frequently. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
