| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: possible bug not in open items |
| Date: | 2009-03-27 21:07:57 |
| Message-ID: | 1238188077.5525.3.camel@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 15:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> > I'm not too familiar with this code, but I think we could just enable
> > ImmediateInterruptOK in CopyGetData().
>
> Only if you are wanting to break things.
>
> The reason we don't allow client read to be interrupted is the fear of
> losing protocol sync on an incomplete message. For the SIGTERM case
> this would (probably) be okay, since we aren't going to pay any more
> attention to the client anyway, but accepting SIGINT there is right out.
>
That's perfectly acceptable to me. I'm only concerned about the shutdown
case, and that's the only case that's in conflict with the docs.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-03-27 21:19:04 | Re: possible bug not in open items |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-03-27 19:43:00 | Re: possible bug not in open items |