Re: Cancelling idle in transaction state
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: James Pye <lists@jwp.name>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2009-12-06T03:15:24Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > I think this line of thinking is on the right track. The server > should certainly not send back an immediate ERROR response, because > that will definitely confuse the client. Of course, any subsequent > commands will report ERRORs until the client rolls back. But it also > seems highly desirable for the server to send some sort of immediate, > asynchronous notification, so that a sufficiently smart client can > immediately report the error back to the user or take such other > action as it deems appropriate. If you must have that, send a NOTICE. I don't actually see the point though. If the client was as smart and well-coded as all that, it wouldn't be sitting on an open transaction in the first place. > Currently, it appears that the only messages that the server can send > back asynchronously are ParameterStatus and NotificationResponse. Using either of those is completely inappropriate. regards, tom lane