| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | "nagaura(dot)ryohei(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <nagaura(dot)ryohei(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "k(dot)jamison(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com" <k(dot)jamison(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, 'Fabien COELHO' <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, 'Kyotaro HORIGUCHI' <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "'robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com'" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "MikalaiKeida(at)ibagroup(dot)eu" <MikalaiKeida(at)ibagroup(dot)eu>, "AYahorau(at)ibagroup(dot)eu" <AYahorau(at)ibagroup(dot)eu>, "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [patch]socket_timeout in interfaces/libpq |
| Date: | 2019-09-10 06:38:21 |
| Message-ID: | 20190910063821.GE11737@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 11:56:28AM +0000, nagaura(dot)ryohei(at)fujitsu(dot)com wrote:
> It seems that you did not think so at that time.
> # Please refer to [1]
>
> I don't think all the reviewers are completely negative.
I recall having a negative impression on the patch when first looking
at it, and still have the same impression when looking at the last
version. Just with a quick look, assuming that you can bypass all
cleanup operations normally taken by pqDropConnection() through a
hijacking of pqWait() is not fine as this routine explicitely assumes
to *never* have a timeout for its wait.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tsunakawa, Takayuki | 2019-09-10 06:44:48 | RE: [bug fix] Produce a crash dump before main() on Windows |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-09-10 06:23:25 | Re: Replication & recovery_min_apply_delay |