ncm(at)zembu(dot)com (Nathan Myers) writes:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 08:01:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Thoughts? Is there anything about this that might be unsafe? Should
>> QueryCancel be set after *any* failure of recv() or send(), or only
>> if certain errno codes are detected (and if so, which ones)?
> Stevens identifies some errno codes that are not significant;
> in particular, EINTR, EAGAIN, and EWOULDBLOCK. Of these, maybe
> only the first occurs on a blocking socket.
We already loop for EINTR. I'm just wondering what to do after we've
given up retrying.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Joe Conway||Date: 2001-06-06 21:45:57|
|Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Fw: Isn't pg_statistic a security hole - Solution Proposal |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2001-06-06 21:25:21|
|Subject: Re: And what about that Debugfile? |