On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Why would this be any different from a cancel-signal-instigated abort?
> You'd be reporting elog(ERROR) in any case.
If I understand the code correctly, in the case of a cancel signal, the
driver sends the signal and then assumes that the backend has accepted it
and cancelled; the back end does not report back. In this case, the driver
would not be sending a signal, so it would not know that the process had
reached the timeout and stopped (and it needs to know that). What we
*could* do is have *both* the driver and the backend run timers and both
stop when the timeout is reached. This seems like a solution just begging
to produce ugly bugs, though -- and if we have to implement such a wait in
the driver, we may as well implement the whole thing in the driver and
just have it send a cancel signal when it times out.
Or am I misunderstanding the situation?
j
