From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Jacob Champion <pchampion@vmware.com>,
        "Jelte.Fennema@microsoft.com" <Jelte.Fennema@microsoft.com>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Add non-blocking version of PQcancel
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+TgmoZUb5yEFNi7pLpoqoOxfwyrCYfczjxeqYor21Cy+Ozasg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <AM5PR83MB0178D3B31CA1B6EC4A8ECC42F7529@AM5PR83MB0178.EURPRD83.prod.outlook.com>
 <20220113004411.3tdgiqdmmo4musb5@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <AM5PR83MB0178CE0CEB690F1C041355B7F7539@AM5PR83MB0178.EURPRD83.prod.outlook.com>
 <b6e02c2ef43a4c8dcbca03dd677ae8331c892175.camel@vmware.com>
 <3150365.1648158113@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20220324224909.4tnubqv2owmfoyoc@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <CA+Tgmoav-v8HVuA-kLJM3Kf6XHtVfOPajQtyAkb5ejs7C_Aw2A@mail.gmail.com>
 <3453535.1648234019@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoZUb5yEFNi7pLpoqoOxfwyrCYfczjxeqYor21Cy+Ozasg@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Fri, 25 Mar 2022 15:22:50 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3457745.1648236890.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2022 15:34:50 -0400
Message-ID: <3457746.1648236890@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3457746.1648236890%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Well, that's a fair point, but it's somewhat orthogonal to the one I'm
> making, which is that a non-blocking version of function X might be
> expected to share code or at least functionality with X itself. Having
> something that is named in a way that implies asynchrony without other
> differences but which is actually different in other important ways is
> no good.

Yeah.  We need to choose a name for these new function(s) that is
sufficiently different from "PQcancel" that people won't expect them
to behave exactly the same as that does.  I lack any good ideas about
that, how about you?

>> Yeah, I don't think it's anywhere near fully baked yet.  On the other
>> hand, we do have a couple of weeks left.

> We do?

Um, you did read the psql-release discussion about setting the feature
freeze deadline, no?

			regards, tom lane