Re: An extra error for client disconnection on Windows

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: An extra error for client disconnection on Windows
Date: 2016-09-13 07:01:03
Message-ID: CAB7nPqRMsJzv-BgeP2h6CiCpTbr6hEG5Q+BdPuhVBZMMA_Gw5Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> If we take a policy to try to imitate the behavior of some
> reference platform (specifically Linux) on other platforms, this
> is required disguising. Another potential policy on this problem
> is "following the platform's behavior". From this viewpoint, this
> message should be shown to users because Windows says
> so. Especially for socket operations, the simultion layer is
> intending the former for non-error behaviors, but I'm not sure
> about the behaviors on errors.

The more you hack windows, the more you'll notice that it is full of
caveats, behavior exceptions, and that it runs in its way as nothing
else in this world... This patch looks like a tempest in a teapot at
the end. Why is it actually a problem to show this message? Just
useless noise? If that's the only reason let's drop the patch and move
on. It seems that the extra information that could be fetched
depending on what caused the connection reset is not worth the risk.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2016-09-13 07:03:51 Re: 9.6 TAP tests and extensions
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2016-09-13 06:37:14 Re: WAL consistency check facility