Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Idea: quicker abort after loss of client connection

From: ncm(at)zembu(dot)com (Nathan Myers)
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Idea: quicker abort after loss of client connection
Date: 2001-06-06 19:43:22
Message-ID: 20010606124322.Q18121@store.zembu.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 08:01:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> Thoughts?  Is there anything about this that might be unsafe?  Should
> QueryCancel be set after *any* failure of recv() or send(), or only
> if certain errno codes are detected (and if so, which ones)?

Stevens identifies some errno codes that are not significant;
in particular, EINTR, EAGAIN, and EWOULDBLOCK.  Of these, maybe
only the first occurs on a blocking socket.

Nathan Myers
ncm(at)zembu(dot)com

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2001-06-06 19:43:53
Subject: And what about that Debugfile?
Previous:From: The Hermit HackerDate: 2001-06-06 19:08:15
Subject: Re: Dual-CPU slower then Single under HP?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group