| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: OOM in libpq and infinite loop with getCopyStart() |
| Date: | 2016-03-21 16:43:55 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY50gsFnsODQe1AnTh7JZQ4LGonSrU6i-KEJE5Of7d+AA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Thoughts? I have registered that in the CF app, and a patch is attached.
It is very difficult to believe that this is a good idea:
--- a/src/backend/replication/libpqwalreceiver/libpqwalreceiver.c
+++ b/src/backend/replication/libpqwalreceiver/libpqwalreceiver.c
@@ -445,6 +445,7 @@ libpqrcv_PQexec(const char *query)
if (PQresultStatus(lastResult) == PGRES_COPY_IN ||
PQresultStatus(lastResult) == PGRES_COPY_OUT ||
PQresultStatus(lastResult) == PGRES_COPY_BOTH ||
+ PQresultStatus(lastResult) == PGRES_FATAL_ERROR ||
PQstatus(streamConn) == CONNECTION_BAD)
break;
}
I mean, why would it be a good idea to blindly skip over fatal errors?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jesper Pedersen | 2016-03-21 16:53:33 | Re: Speedup twophase transactions |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2016-03-21 16:33:05 | Re: Combining Aggregates |