Re: closesocket behavior in different platforms

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: closesocket behavior in different platforms
Date: 2020-01-30 03:34:48
Message-ID: CAA4eK1K0U96kPeuni-V2EjfP-a8mMxo1tQ2B1TY_yG9FqPAsyA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 8:29 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 6:04 AM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Thanks for your review and suggestion. I have made a patch based on
> > similar lines. Attached patch has the doc update with the explanation.
> > Thoughts?
>
> Documenting this doesn't seem very useful to me.
>

I thought of documenting it because this has been reported/discussed
multiple times (see some of the links of discussions at the end of the
first email) and every time we need to spend time explaining the same
thing. However, if we decide not to do that I am fine with it.

> If we could fix the
> code, that would be useful, but otherwise I think I'd just do nothing.
>

Yeah, that is our first choice as well, but there doesn't seem to be a
good solution to it as this is a platform-specific behavior.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2020-01-30 03:58:41 Re: pg_stat_progress_basebackup - progress reporting for pg_basebackup, in the server side
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2020-01-30 03:28:34 Re: Do we need to handle orphaned prepared transactions in the server?