From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: "unexpected EOF" messages |
Date: | 2012-05-07 16:39:24 |
Message-ID: | CABUevEwm27GDBBk=py-ojvCSLFYmj1AGLuDnFyNydR+ND-t-3w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> Any further suggestoins for which codes to use? If not, I think I'm
>> going to commit the patch as I had it, because it's not any worse than
>> what we had before (but fixes the annoying messages), and we can
>> always revisit the actual errorcodes later.
>
> I'm still a bit uncomfortable about using the 08 codes on the backend
> side; but on reflection it's hard to see how it could cause any real
> confusion, so maybe we should just go with that.
>
> Another point is that the patch would be shorter and more reliable
> if you just forced whereToSendOutput = DestNone, without trying to save
> and restore it. Once the connection is known busted, there is no point
> in sending any future I/O towards the client, either.
Makes sense, will change and commit.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-07 17:09:23 | Re: Latch for the WAL writer - further reducing idle wake-ups. |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-05-07 15:59:22 | Re: smart shutdown at end of transaction (was: Default mode for shutdown) |