On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter T Mount <peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> >> The recv() complaints probably indicate that the client application
> >> disconnected ungracefully (ie, without sending the 'X' terminate
> >> message). It's curious that they're not both alike.
> > Hmmm, I've never seen the recv() problem before with any JDBC app, only
> > this one.
> That particular message is new in the 6.5 code (BTW, as of this morning
> it should say "pq_recvbuf: unexpected EOF on client connection").
> I was about to say that prior versions would also complain about an
> unexpected client disconnect, but actually it looks like 6.4.2 doesn't
> --- at least not in this low-level code. I'm not inclined to remove the
> message however. I think we want it there to help detect more serious
> problems, like disconnect in the middle of a COPY operation.
> > PS: Currently the JDBC driver is still using the 6.3.x protocol. When 6.4
> > came out I didn't implement the CANCEL stuff, as I was concentrating on
> > getting more of the innards implemented.
> > Anyhow, if the terminate message is a problem, I'll upgrade the protocol.
> The terminate message is defined in the old protocol too; it's not new
> for 6.4. As for whether it's a "problem" not to send it, it's only
> a problem if you don't like complaints in the postmaster log ;-).
> The backend will close up shop just fine without it.
Looks like something that's been missing since the begining. Ok, I'll add
the message to it tomorrow, as I'm planning some cleanups this weekend.
Peter T Mount peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk
Main Homepage: http://www.retep.org.uk
PostgreSQL JDBC Faq: http://www.retep.org.uk/postgres
Java PDF Generator: http://www.retep.org.uk/pdf
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Clark Evans||Date: 1999-02-18 19:24:05|
|Subject: CVS overwrite on merge fail?|
|Previous:||From: Inkster, Douglas||Date: 1999-02-18 18:39:26|
|Subject: RE: list limit for IN predicate?|