On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 08:34:46PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > 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.
> Well, if we did want to change this it would be far easier and safer to
> do the other thing (ie, set QueryCancel upon noticing a write failure).
> 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?
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Tomasz Ostrowski||Date: 2006-03-27 13:50:45|
|Subject: BUG #2361: windows installer: pg_config not installed when "Database Server" not chosen|
|Previous:||From: Jim C. Nasby||Date: 2006-03-27 11:23:30|
|Subject: Re: BUG #2358: Vacuum & \dt problems|