On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

>
> But having said that ... are we sure this code is not actually broken?
>

I'm not.


> ISTM that if we dare not interrupt for fear of confusing OpenSSL, we
> cannot safely attempt to send an error message to the client either;
> but ereport(FATAL) will try exactly that.
>

I thought since FATAL will force the backend to exit, we don't care much
about corrupted OpenSSL state. I even thought that's why we raise ERROR to
FATAL so that the backend can start in a clean state. But clearly I'm
missing a point here because you don't think that way.

Thanks,
Pavan

-- 
Pavan Deolasee
http://www.linkedin.com/in/pavandeolasee

In response to

• Re: Hot Standby conflict resolution handling at 2013-01-17 06:38:31 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: Hot Standby conflict resolution handling at 2013-01-17 15:19:23 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Simon Riggs	Date: 2013-01-17 08:41:37
	Subject: Re: Removing PD_ALL_VISIBLE
Previous:	From: Pavan Deolasee	Date: 2013-01-17 07:19:08
	Subject: Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)