Re: BackendKeyData is mandatory? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jacob Champion
Subject Re: BackendKeyData is mandatory?
Date
Msg-id CAOYmi+nopSksm11tOAU_+KqoXxgyGyS97rQ8RY5OxcvKOhC=DQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: BackendKeyData is mandatory?  (Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 1:36 AM Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl> wrote:
> Okay, that sounds widely used enough to continue that we should
> probably change the new PG18 behaviour of PQgetCancel and
> PQcancelCreate like I suggested. Failing all psycopg2 connection
> attempts against AWS its proxy service doesn't seem like something
> we'd want to do.

So that's
1) return an (empty) cancellation object even if the server has not
sent a key, and
2) error out when trying to cancel with an empty object?

That sounds reasonable to me.

Are there any reading along who want us to continue sending an
all-zeroes CancelRequest if the server has not sent a key? Personally,
I don't feel a need to push for that without evidence that it's
actually used, and both RDS Proxy and Cockroach [1] seem to fall in
the "don't support cancellation at all" bucket.

Thanks!
--Jacob

[1] https://github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/issues/32973



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Melanie Plageman
Date:
Subject: Re: Vacuum ERRORs out considering freezing dead tuples from before OldestXmin
Next
From: Melanie Plageman
Date:
Subject: Re: Simplify VM counters in vacuum code