| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, "Igal (at) Lucee(dot)org" <igal(at)lucee(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Ian Barwick <ian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: RETURNING primary_key() |
| Date: | 2016-04-04 02:20:19 |
| Message-ID: | 20160404022019.GV10850@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Craig Ringer (craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> On 4 April 2016 at 10:13, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> wrote:
> > Async notification is the easier part, I wasn't aware that the ssl library
> > had this problem though
>
> AFAIK the issue is that even if there are bytes available on the underlying
> socket, the SSL lib doesn't know if that means there are bytes readable
> from the wrapped SSL socket. The traffic on the underlying socket could be
> renegotiation messages or whatever.
>
> We really need non-blocking reads.
That would certainly be a good way to address this, but I'm guessing
it's non-trivial to implement.
Thanks!
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2016-04-04 02:22:58 | Re: Proposal: RETURNING primary_key() |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2016-04-04 02:19:12 | Re: Proposal: RETURNING primary_key() |