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

Re: Idea: quicker abort after loss of client connection

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Idea: quicker abort after loss of client connection
Date: 2001-06-06 21:26:44
Message-ID: 5738.991862804@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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 ConwayDate: 2001-06-06 21:45:57
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Fw: Isn't pg_statistic a security hole - Solution Proposal
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-06-06 21:25:21
Subject: Re: And what about that Debugfile?

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