From: | Dmitry Samonenko <shreddingwork(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Fwd: libpq: indefinite block on poll during network problems |
Date: | 2014-05-30 17:39:36 |
Message-ID: | CAFKp+3fSr_Y_WzwbyDV4oWw0ZPcc4H_tNdeXRPh-YG=phrhVhw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
wrote:
> I don't think the suggestion is to move to async command processing. I
> think the suggestion is to use those methods to make a
> PGgetResultWithTimeout() that does what you want.
>
> Have a nice day,
> --
> Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> > He who writes carelessly confesses thereby at the very outset that he
> does
> > not attach much importance to his own thoughts.
> -- Arthur Schopenhauer
>
>
Yeah, that will work. Looks simple to implement in the client. Question is:
why don't you think it should be a part of the libpq's API? It's a must
have feature in high availability environments where only several minutes
of Out of Service per year are tolerable.
I am not sure if it is the right mailing list to ask, but - would a patch
with the function be considered?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-05-30 17:46:33 | Re: Fwd: libpq: indefinite block on poll during network problems |
Previous Message | Asif Naeem | 2014-05-30 17:25:54 | Re: unable to build postgres-9.4 in os x 10.9 with python |