Josh Berkus wrote:
>> That is exactly the core idea I was trying to suggest in my rambling
>> message. Just that small additional bit of information transmitted and
>> published to the master via that route, and it's possible to optimize
>> this problem in a way not available now. And it's a way that I believe
>> will feel more natural to some users who may not be well served by any
>> of the existing tuning possibilities.
>
> Well, if both you and Tom think it would be relatively easy (or at least
> easier that continuing to pursue query cancel troubleshooting), then
> please start coding it. It was always a possible approach, we just
> collectively thought that query cancel would be easier.
You still need query cancels. A feedback loop just makes it happen less
frequently.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
