Re: Non-blocking communication between a frontend and a backend (pqcomm)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Martin Pihlak <martin(dot)pihlak(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Non-blocking communication between a frontend and a backend (pqcomm)
Date: 2009-07-24 23:39:11
Message-ID: 15078.1248478751@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> I am also thinking that if you do need the ability to get control back
> without blocking on the socket, you probably will need that for writes
> as well as reads; and this patch doesn't cover the write case.

Oh, another gripe: I'll bet a nickel that this doesn't work very nicely
under SSL. Bytes available on the socket doesn't necessarily equate to
decrypted payload bytes being available. Depending on how you're using
secure_poll, that might be okay, but it seems like a hazard waiting to
trap unwary maintainers.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sam Mason 2009-07-24 23:45:47 Re: SE-PostgreSQL Specifications
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-07-24 23:31:13 Re: COPY WITH CSV FORCE QUOTE * -- REVIEW