| From: | Peter Eisentraut <e99re41(at)DoCS(dot)UU(dot)SE> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Changes in 7.0 |
| Date: | 2000-02-24 16:01:51 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.GSO.4.02A.10002241700400.17421-100000@Hummer.DoCS.UU.SE |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> For a COPY OUT (from the backend), the correct behavior is same as for
> non-copy state: fire off the cancel request and then forget about it.
Do I have to call PQendcopy() is the question.
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders vaeg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-02-24 16:03:41 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] First experiences with Postgresql 7.0 |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-02-24 16:00:49 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] First experiences with Postgresql 7.0 |