Re: V3: Idle in transaction cancellation

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> 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" there is a need to wait for the next request.  It would
be a big plus for the backend requesting the cancellation to be able
to specify the SQLSTATE, message, etc., used by the other backend on
failure.
> You might want to check out SendProcSignal() et al.
Will take a look.
> Besides that I dont like the implementation very much, I think its
> generally a good idea...
OK.  While browsing around, I'll try to think of an alternative
approach, but this is new territory for me -- I've been learning
about areas in the code at need so far....
-Kevin