From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "nagaura(dot)ryohei(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <nagaura(dot)ryohei(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
Cc: | 'Michael Paquier' <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "k(dot)jamison(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <k(dot)jamison(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, 'Fabien COELHO' <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, 'Kyotaro HORIGUCHI' <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "'robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com'" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "MikalaiKeida(at)ibagroup(dot)eu" <MikalaiKeida(at)ibagroup(dot)eu>, "AYahorau(at)ibagroup(dot)eu" <AYahorau(at)ibagroup(dot)eu>, "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [patch]socket_timeout in interfaces/libpq |
Date: | 2020-03-24 14:58:21 |
Message-ID: | ca382d74-e3ae-6467-d2b2-7ef98fd8f996@pgmasters.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/29/19 12:22 AM, nagaura(dot)ryohei(at)fujitsu(dot)com wrote:
>
>> From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 11:56:28AM +0000, nagaura(dot)ryohei(at)fujitsu(dot)com wrote:
>>> It seems that you did not think so at that time.
>>> # Please refer to [1]
>>>
>>> I don't think all the reviewers are completely negative.
>>
>> I recall having a negative impression on the patch when first looking at it, and still
>> have the same impression when looking at the last version. Just with a quick
>> look, assuming that you can bypass all cleanup operations normally taken by
>> pqDropConnection() through a hijacking of pqWait() is not fine as this routine
>> explicitely assumes to *never* have a timeout for its wait.
>
> I couldn't understand what you meant.
> Do you say that we shouldn't change pqWait() behavior?
> Or should I modify my patch to use pqDropConnection()?
This patch no longer applies: http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_27_2175.log
CF entry has been updated to Waiting on Author.
More importantly it looks like there is still no consensus on this
patch, which is an uncommitted part of a previous patch [1].
Unless somebody chimes in I'll mark this Returned with Feedback at the
end of the CF.
Regards,
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/raw/20190406065428.GA2145%40paquier.xyz
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Steele | 2020-03-24 15:04:45 | Re: pgbench - add \aset to store results of a combined query |
Previous Message | David Steele | 2020-03-24 14:47:00 | Re: psql - improve test coverage from 41% to 88% |