Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl> writes:
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 at 02:31, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> This seems to fix the problem here. Thoughts?
> Overall, a good approach to fix issue number 1. I think it would be
> best if this was integrated into libpqsrv_cancel instead though. That
> way the dblink would benefit from it too.
How would we do that? libpqsrv_cancel is not chartered to wait around
for the results of the cancel, and I'm not even sure that it could
know what to check for.
(I did get the impression that all this code was not very well
factored, but I'm not volunteering to rewrite it wholesale.)
> nit: Maybe call it RETRY_CANCEL_TIME.
Sure.
regards, tom lane
