Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On 24 April 2016 at 17:54, Shay Rojansky <r...@roji.org> wrote: >> I definitely agree that simply tracking message sequence numbers on both >> sides is better. It's also a powerful feature to be able to cancel all >> messages "up to N" - I'm thinking of a scenario where, for example, many >> simple queries are sent and the whole process needs to be cancelled.
> For security, I think any non-matching cancellation would be ignored so > that only someone with proper context could issue the cancel. Well, we already have a random cancel key in the requests. As a separate matter for a protocol change, it might be nice to consider widening the cancel key to make it harder to brute-force; but I disagree that the current proposal has anything whatever to do with security. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers