Re: SIGPIPE handling

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Kurt Roeckx <Q(at)ping(dot)be>
Cc: Manfred Spraul <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SIGPIPE handling
Date: 2003-11-16 17:53:07
Message-ID: 28913.1069005187@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Kurt Roeckx <Q(at)ping(dot)be> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 06:28:06PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> Is there a reason we don't make use of the MSG_NOSIGNAL flag to
>> send()? Or is the problem in case of SSL?

> Oh, seems to be a Linux only thing?

That and the SSL problem. I wouldn't object to implementing it as a
platform-specific optimization if we could get it to handle the SSL
case, but without SSL support I think it's too limited.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-11-16 18:00:55 Re: SIGPIPE handling
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2003-11-16 17:38:52 Re: [PATCHES] SRA Win32 sync() code