On 24 April 2016 at 17:54, Shay Rojansky <r...@roji.org> wrote:
> I definitely agree that simply tracking message sequence numbers on both > sides is better. It's also a powerful feature to be able to cancel all > messages "up to N" - I'm thinking of a scenario where, for example, many > simple queries are sent and the whole process needs to be cancelled. > For security, I think any non-matching cancellation would be ignored so that only someone with proper context could issue the cancel. Issuing bulk cancellations sounds like a bad plan. Yes, this has been happening to some Npgsql users, it's not very frequent > but it does happen from time to time. I also bumped into this in some > automated testing scenarios. It's not the highest-value feature, but it is > an improvement to have if you plan on working on a new protocol version. > > Let me know if you'd like me to update the TODO. > If you've got an itch, expecting someone else to scratch it is less likely to succeed. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
