On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> But having said that ... are we sure this code is not actually broken?
> ISTM that if we dare not interrupt for fear of confusing OpenSSL, we
> cannot safely attempt to send an error message to the client either;
> but ereport(FATAL) will try exactly that.
I thought since FATAL will force the backend to exit, we don't care much
about corrupted OpenSSL state. I even thought that's why we raise ERROR to
FATAL so that the backend can start in a clean state. But clearly I'm
missing a point here because you don't think that way.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2013-01-17 08:41:37|
|Subject: Re: Removing PD_ALL_VISIBLE|
|Previous:||From: Pavan Deolasee||Date: 2013-01-17 07:19:08|
|Subject: Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)|