Re: Question regarding SSL code in backend and frontend

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Question regarding SSL code in backend and frontend
Date: 2012-04-04 16:18:32
Message-ID: 27932.1333556312@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 17:57, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I rather wonder whether the #ifdef WIN32 bit in the backend isn't dead
>> code though. If the port isn't in nonblock mode, we shouldn't really
>> get here at all, should we?

> Not in a position to look at the code right now, but first guess - we
> *always* have the underlying socket in nonblocking mode on win32, so
> we can deliver signals properly.

Ah, I think you're right. So actually, the retry looping is expected
to be never-invoked in the Unix case. If it did happen, it'd be a busy
wait loop, which would probably be a bad thing ... but it shouldn't
happen, and not clear it's worth adding any code to consider the
possibility more carefully.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-04-04 16:22:13 Re: invalid search_path complaints
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2012-04-04 16:13:58 Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER?