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 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomasz Ostrowski | 2006-03-27 13:50:45 | BUG #2361: windows installer: pg_config not installed when "Database Server" not chosen |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-03-27 11:23:30 | Re: BUG #2358: Vacuum & \dt problems |