On 10/02/2011 05:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm with Noah on this. If allowing same-user cancels is enough to solve 95% or 99% of the real-world use cases, let's just do that.
And we're back full circle. This is basically where Josh Kuperschmidt started in early 2010: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4ec1cf761002051455i6e702999y7cf4699b4eb48...@mail.gmail.com
Then Torello's patch initially more ambitious patch got pruned down to the same sort of feature set.
Next, the day after the November CommitFest started (so it got kind of lost), Edward Muller took a shot at coding exactly this too, which he tells me happened without even knowing the other two were already floating around: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/cabm0hdx+xuc3dsncnb2z2mertw3crcc5kjmvh6kwhb7jnix...@mail.gmail.com
The picture of what people really want here is pretty clear now, after different people wanted same-user cancels (or more) badly enough to submit a patch adding it, in three cases now.
-- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US g...@2ndquadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
