Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Add non-blocking version of PQcancel - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jelte Fennema-Nio
Subject Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Add non-blocking version of PQcancel
Date
Msg-id CAGECzQRkiiGQC+ne57ZhZv-dcQ3k5Ey4BjwXpiUKsWQ=9vftfg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Add non-blocking version of PQcancel  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Responses Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Add non-blocking version of PQcancel  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 at 17:43, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> Hah, you're right, I can reproduce with a smaller timeout, and using SET
> LOCAL works as a fix.  If we're doing that, why not reduce the timeout
> to 1ms?  We don't need to wait extra 9ms ...

I think we don't really want to make the timeout too short. Otherwise
the query might get cancelled before we push any query down to the
FDW. I guess that means that for some slow machines even 10ms is not
enough to make the test do the intended purpose. I'd keep it at 10ms,
which seems long enough for normal systems, while still being pretty
short.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: To what extent should tests rely on VACUUM ANALYZE?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: To what extent should tests rely on VACUUM ANALYZE?