Re: Why is it not using the other processor?
От | Alex Pilosov |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Why is it not using the other processor? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.BSO.4.10.10107072343560.7004-100000@spider.pilosoft.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Why is it not using the other processor? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
On Thu, 5 Jul 2001, Tom Lane wrote: > Ryan Mahoney <ryan@paymentalliance.net> writes: > > Re: killing a process from browser, I don't think what you're trying to do > > is really possible. > > If the client-side code were programmed to send a Cancel request to the > backend when the user loses interest, then the right things would > happen. I am not sure how practical that is though; does the web server > even find out about it when the user presses Stop in a typical browser? > (If not, you can hardly expect Postgres to somehow intuit what happened > two protocols away ;-).) Webserver definitely finds out. (Socket gets closed by client). The real question is, how does webserver signal this fact to a CGI/mod_perl/jsp/whatever web application. For CGI, _i believe_ the standard is that webserver will SIGHUP the application, and app can do whatever cleanup it needs. For other interfaces, I really don't know. -alex
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: