Re: Followup comment for bug report 'postmaster ignores SIGPIPE' [was: Bug#255208: Would help with client aborts, too.]

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: 2006-03-26 17:48:53
Message-ID: 200603261948.54649.peter_e@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Tom Lane wrote:
> Allowing SIGPIPE to kill the backend is completely infeasible, as the
> backend would be unable to release locks etc before dying.

So the upshot is really not that ignoring SIGPIPE is specifically
intended as the optimal solution but that writing a proper cleanup
handler for SIGPIPE seems very difficult.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message tao.shen 2006-03-27 00:34:30 BUG #2359: silent Installer for Postgresql 8.1.3 ignores BASEDIR
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-03-26 16:39:01 Re: Fwd: Bug#358546: failure of pg_ctl start -w -D