Re: Replication protocol doc fix

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Replication protocol doc fix
Date: 2021-07-02 12:44:36
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZa-3zTU1_2odkwWMvdhEfFyuz_XDzMxgKtW-VyWzQD_g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 1:55 AM Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 12:25 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I am not sure whether this works or not. Holding off cancel
> > interrupts
> > across possible network I/O seems like a non-starter. We have to be
> > able to kill off connections that have wedged.
>
> I was following a pattern that I saw in CopyGetData() and
> SocketBackend(). If I understand correctly, the idea is to avoid a
> cancel leaving part of a message unread, which would desync the
> protocol.

Right, that seems like a good goal. Thinking about this a little more,
it's only holding off *cancel* interrupts, not *all* interrupts, so
presumably you can still terminate the backend in this state. That's
not so bad, and it's not clear how we could do any better. So I
withdraw my previous complaint about this point.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com 2021-07-02 12:53:02 RE: ECPG bug fix: DECALRE STATEMENT and DEALLOCATE, DESCRIBE
Previous Message Laurenz Albe 2021-07-02 12:40:52 Re: Update maintenance_work_mem/autovacuum_work_mem to reflect the 1GB limitation with VACUUM