| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Rajeev rastogi <rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Dangling Client Backend Process |
| Date: | 2015-10-30 13:48:33 |
| Message-ID: | 10481.1446212913@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Hmm. ProcessInterrupts() signals some FATAL errors while the
> connection is idle, and rumor has it that that works: the client
> doesn't immediately read the FATAL error, but the next time it sends a
> query, it tries to read from the connection and sees the FATAL error
> at that time. I wonder why that's not working here.
A likely theory is that the kernel is reporting failure to libpq's
send() because the other side of the connection is already gone.
This would be timing-dependent of course.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vladimir Borodin | 2015-10-30 13:49:00 | Re: [ADMIN] Replication slots and isolation levels |
| Previous Message | Euler Taveira | 2015-10-30 13:42:46 | Re: WIP: Fix parallel workers connection bug in pg_dump (Bug #13727) |