| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, Martin Pitt <martin(at)piware(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: Followup comment for bug report 'postmaster ignores SIGPIPE' [was: Bug#255208: Would help with client aborts, too.] |
| Date: | 2006-03-27 14:50:38 |
| Message-ID: | 14128.1143471038@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 08:34:46PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The question is whether doing either one is really a material
>> improvement, seeing that neither is going to provoke an abort
>> until/unless the backend actually tries to write something to the client.
> Is there a server equivalent to PQstatus? If there were one, couldn't
> the server periodically ping the client?
No, and do you really want the server stopping its processing of the
query just to go see if the client is still alive? This would slow
things down and introduce a whole new failure mode, ie, client doesn't
answer ping fast enough so its session gets aborted.
(Just for the record, PQstatus isn't a "ping" operation either.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-03-27 15:01:47 | Re: Followup comment for bug report 'postmaster ignores SIGPIPE' [was: Bug#255208: Would help with client aborts, too.] |
| Previous Message | Tomasz Ostrowski | 2006-03-27 14:03:04 | BUG #2362: bug reporting form: "submit" shows only "&id=[number]" |