Re: Cancelling idle in transaction state

Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au> wrote:
 
> It might be kind of handy if I could getWarnings() on the
> connection object without blocking so I could call it before I
> executed a statement on the connection ... but that'd always
> introduce a race between transaction cancellation/timeout and
> statement execution, so code must always be prepared to handle
> timeout/cancellation related failure anyway.
 
+1 (I think)
 
If I'm understanding this, it sounds to me like it would be most
appropriate for the NOTICE to generate a warning at the connection
level and for the next request to throw an exception in the format
suggested by Heikki -- which I think is what Craig is suggesting.
 
-Kevin