"Kevin Grittner" wrote:
> Andres Freund wrote:
>> On Thursday 02 December 2010 00:48:53 Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>
>>> Is there any provision for one backend to cause a *different*
>>> backend which is idle in a transaction to terminate cleanly when
>>> it attempts to process its next statement?
>>
Andres Freund wrote:
> On Thursday 02 December 2010 00:48:53 Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Is there any provision for one backend to cause a *different*
>> backend which is idle in a transaction to terminate cleanly when
>> it attempts to process its next statement?
> You might want to check out Sen
Andres Freund wrote:
> Do you wan't to terminate it immediately or on next statement?
I want to have one backend terminate the transaction on another
backend as soon as practicable. If a query is active, it would be
best if it was canceled. It appears that if it is "idle in
transaction" ther
On Thursday 02 December 2010 00:48:53 Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Andres Freund wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 October 2010 16:18:29 Kevin Grittner wrote:
> >> For SSI purposes, it would be highly desirable to be able to set
> >> the SQLSTATE and message generated when the canceled transaction
> >> terminat
Andres Freund wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 October 2010 16:18:29 Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> For SSI purposes, it would be highly desirable to be able to set
>> the SQLSTATE and message generated when the canceled transaction
>> terminates.
> Ok, I implemented that capability, but the patch feels somew
