Re: Replication server timeout patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Replication server timeout patch
Date: 2011-03-29 13:24:49
Message-ID: 12760.1301405089@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> Should we use COMMERROR instead of ERROR if we fail to put the socket in the
>> right mode?

> Maybe.

COMMERROR exists to keep us from trying to send an error report down a
failed socket. I would assume (perhaps wrongly) that
walsender/walreceiver don't try to push error reports across the socket
anyway, only to the postmaster log. If correct, there is no need for
COMMERROR, and using it just muddies the code.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2011-03-29 13:33:35 Re: SSI bug?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-03-29 13:20:38 Re: deadlock_timeout at < PGC_SIGHUP?