Re: killing process question

From: "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>
To: "'pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: killing process question
Date: 2002-09-19 15:58:55
Message-ID: 3D8A4197.32559.14A47941@localhost
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

On 19 Sep 2002 at 11:49, Tom Lane wrote:

> "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> writes:
> > I guess a backend should terminate as if connection is closed. What say?
>
> No.
>
> It will terminate when it tries to read the next query from the client.

OK. But what if it never reads anything? I mean if the client dies after a
complete transaction i.e. no input pending for either back end or client, will
it just sit around waiting for select to signal that fd?(AFAIU, that's how
things goes in there..)

Clearly we have a case where backend is hung persumably. Either it has to have
an explanation(OK client did aborted abruptly) and/or a possible corrective
action..

Just some thoughts..

Bye
Shridhar

--
QOTD: "I won't say he's untruthful, but his wife has to call the dog for
dinner."

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-09-19 16:05:39 Re: keeping a log / debug info
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-09-19 15:58:24 Re: Memory Errors...

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD 2002-09-19 16:00:37 Re: Proposal for resolving casting issues
Previous Message Johnson, Shaunn 2002-09-19 15:55:18 Re: killing process question