From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Lars Kanis <lars(at)greiz-reinsdorf(dot)de>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Windows: Wrong error message at connection termination |
Date: | 2021-11-29 19:16:47 |
Message-ID: | 1283317.1638213407@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 27.11.2021 14:39, Lars Kanis wrote:
>> So I still think it's best to close the socket as proposed in the patch.
> Please see also the previous discussion of the topic:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/16678-253e48d34dc0c376%40postgresql.org
Hm, yeah, that discussion seems to have slipped through the cracks.
Not sure why it didn't end up in pushing something.
After re-reading that thread and re-studying relevant Windows
documentation [1][2], I think the main open question is whether
we need to issue shutdown() or not, and if so, whether to use
SD_BOTH or just SD_SEND. I'm inclined to prefer not calling
shutdown(), because [1] is self-contradictory as to whether it
can block, and [2] is pretty explicit that it's not necessary.
regards, tom lane
[1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winsock/nf-winsock-shutdown
[2] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/winsock/graceful-shutdown-linger-options-and-socket-closure-2
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2021-11-29 19:26:01 | Re: Non-superuser subscription owners |
Previous Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2021-11-29 19:04:06 | Re: Lots of memory allocated when reassigning Large Objects |