Re: Some 9.5beta2 backend processes not terminating properly?

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Brar Piening <lists(at)piening(dot)info>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Some 9.5beta2 backend processes not terminating properly?
Date: 2016-01-04 15:22:34
Message-ID: CABUevExbzb=bDV6SDVTW=ZmZgQi9hp1HLhdvvLuc-ErcjB=u9A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > I wonder if we ought to backport this further: e.g. walsender
> > continously uses nonblocking sockets via pq_getbyte_if_available(). On
> > the other hand I can't immediately see a problem with that, besides
> > differing messages on windows/the rest of the world.
>
> I'm slightly worried about breaking 3rd-party code that might be using
> recv() and somehow expecting the current behavior. However, it's equally
> arguable that such code would have Windows-specific problems that would be
> fixed by the patch. Now that we've seen a successful round of buildfarm
> results, I'd be okay with back-patching 90e61df8 personally.
>
> Any other opinions out there?
>

Maybe holdoff until the release with the new code has been out for a while,
but make sure we get it into the next set of minors? That'll give us at
least some real world deployment to notice any issues with it?

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2016-01-04 15:27:54 Re: Some 9.5beta2 backend processes not terminating properly?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-01-04 15:20:43 Re: Some 9.5beta2 backend processes not terminating properly?