Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> Well, that's a fair point, but it's somewhat orthogonal to the one I'm
> making, which is that a non-blocking version of function X might be
> expected to share code or at least functionality with X itself. Having
> something that is named in a way that implies asynchrony without other
> differences but which is actually different in other important ways is
> no good.
Yeah. We need to choose a name for these new function(s) that is
sufficiently different from "PQcancel" that people won't expect them
to behave exactly the same as that does. I lack any good ideas about
that, how about you?
>> Yeah, I don't think it's anywhere near fully baked yet. On the other
>> hand, we do have a couple of weeks left.
> We do?
Um, you did read the psql-release discussion about setting the feature
freeze deadline, no?
regards, tom lane
