On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 11:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > After some thought, the way I would handle this is by sending a slightly > > different kind of signal. > > > We can send a shared invalidation message which means "end the > > transaction, whether or not you are currently running a statement". > > No, a thousand times no.
So you're against it? ;-) > The sinval queue is an *utterly* inappropriate > mechanism for such a thing. To be honest, it did seem quite a neat solution. Any particular direction of thought you'd like me to pursue instead? Asking the backend to kill itself is much cleaner than the other ways I imagined. So my other thoughts steer towards hijacking the SIGUSR1 signal somehow for my nefarious purposes. Would that way sound OK? -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
