Re: Proposal: RETURNING primary_key()

From: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "Igal (at) Lucee(dot)org" <igal(at)lucee(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Ian Barwick <ian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: RETURNING primary_key()
Date: 2016-04-04 02:17:54
Message-ID: CAMsr+YGqKHZTa5w32OV9uhHkumT3a7KHDc=Vi04WYZrLoSg+-g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 4 April 2016 at 10:13, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> wrote:

> Async notification is the easier part, I wasn't aware that the ssl library
> had this problem though
>
>
AFAIK the issue is that even if there are bytes available on the underlying
socket, the SSL lib doesn't know if that means there are bytes readable
from the wrapped SSL socket. The traffic on the underlying socket could be
renegotiation messages or whatever.

We really need non-blocking reads.

--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2016-04-04 02:19:12 Re: Proposal: RETURNING primary_key()
Previous Message Dave Cramer 2016-04-04 02:13:50 Re: Proposal: RETURNING primary_key()