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

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

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 11:39:14
Message-ID: 20060327113914.GU80726@pervasive.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
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

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Tomasz OstrowskiDate: 2006-03-27 13:50:45
Subject: BUG #2361: windows installer: pg_config not installed when "Database Server" not chosen
Previous:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2006-03-27 11:23:30
Subject: Re: BUG #2358: Vacuum & \dt problems

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