| From: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Hot Standby conflict resolution handling |
| Date: | 2013-01-17 07:49:47 |
| Message-ID: | CABOikdOcMSdC=L83ScqwkdctMcqRYwqnkJetFHA5=Vq-Up_KqA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-01-17 08:41:37 | Re: Removing PD_ALL_VISIBLE |
| Previous Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2013-01-17 07:19:08 | Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution) |