Sent from my iPad
On 18-Feb-2013, at 22:38, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:33:26PM +0530, Atri Sharma wrote:
>>>> While your threads are executing, your query can't be cancelled --
>>>> only a hard kill will take the database down. If you're ok with that
>>>> risk, then go for it. If you're not, then I'd thinking about
>>>> sendinging the bytea through a protocol to a threaded processing
>>>> server running outside of the database. More work and slower
>>>> (protocol overhead), but much more robust.
>>>=20
>>> You can see the approach of not calling any PG-specific routines from
>>> theads here:
>>>=20
>>> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Parallel_Query_Execution#Approaches
>>=20
>>=20
>> Is there any way to locally synchronise the threads in my code,and
>> send the requests to the PostgreSQL backend one at a time? Like a waiting=
>> queue in my code?
>=20
> Is this from the client code? That is easy from libpq using
> asynchronous queries.
>=20
>=20
Actually, I haven't yet faced any such scenario.I was just thinking of all t=
he possibilities that can happen in this case.Hehehe
If we want to do this from a function in PostgreSQL itself, would a local sy=
nchronisation mechanism work?
Regards,
Atri=
